...Shall Not Be Infringed

[acbytesla]

This, of course, is the downfall of all arguments comparing guns to pools, or to fire extinguishers, or any of the other many comparisons I've seen.

And nobody give me the old "guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel small pieces of metal very fast". Shut up. Guns were invented as weapons of war. Period.

What drives me crazy about this debate is the idea that the founders meant for us to be locked into this position. The guns of the American Revolution were smooth barrel muskets. Wildly inaccurate, taking a practiced soldier 20 seconds to load each bullet.

 

[ahhell]

This, of course, is the downfall of all arguments comparing guns to pools, or to fire extinguishers, or any of the other many comparisons I've seen.

And nobody give me the old "guns aren't designed to kill people, they're designed to propel small pieces of metal very fast". Shut up. Guns were invented as weapons of war. Period.

They were also invented for hunting. So, period not warranted. They are also fun to shoot at targets. Regardless, it's true that the risk of shootings is the price of gun ownership.

Acbytesla's right about the constitution though, it was meant to be amended, I'd bet the founders would be surprised at how few amendments we have.

 

[Thermal]

I do believe the founders were acquainted with dueling pistols, and understood perfectly well the concept of capping a mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ because you didn't like them.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I do believe the founders were acquainted with dueling pistols, and understood perfectly well the concept of capping a mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊ because you didn't like them.

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now. Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

 

[Thermal]

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now. Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

Because buying a modified military weapon on the way home from work is way cool and you have to make it sound like a religious right in order to justify being able to keep doing so.

The guys that rely on the 'god given right as enshrined by the founders' by and large have no idea what the founders wrote, and the brothers wrote a lot. A metric ◊◊◊◊ ton, as they say, by today's standards. Including the assumption that the Constitution would be superceded, like the Articles of Confederation were.

 

[ahhell]

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now. Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

The constitution is the law, so it matters what the law says and what they meant when they wrote it. A lot of folks don't care or only pretend to care what the laws are mind you. It can be amended, that's also written into it. I happen to think we ought to amend it rather than ignore what the law actually is to go ahead and let the government do whatever the hell they want. That's awfully naive of me, I know.

I'd hate for us to replace the who thing though because we'd almost certainly end up with something worse. Not that there aren't better ways necessary, just that I don't trust modern Americans to make better choices.

 

[Darat]

The constitution is the law, so it matters what the law says and
what they meant when they wrote it. A lot of folks don't care or only pretend to care what the laws are mind you. It can be amended, that's also written into it. I happen to think we ought to amend it rather than ignore what the law actually is to go ahead and let the government do whatever the hell they want. That's awfully naive of me, I know.

I'd hate for us to replace the who thing though because we'd almost certainly end up with something worse. Not that there aren't better ways necessary, just that I don't trust modern Americans to make better choices.

Why?

 

[ahhell]

What's the limiting principle on what government can do if you we don't pay attention to what was meant and written when laws were actually passed?

 

[Darat]

What's the limiting principle on what government can do if you we don't pay attention to what was meant and written when laws were actually passed?

There isn't any limiting principle, it's a convention that society i.e. people abide with. And the world changes, to me the idea that you have to be bound by what an elite decided 250 years ago is insanity.

 

[theprestige]

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

It seems like there are a few misunderstandings here.

The US Constitution is well-understood to be a legal document that can be amended as society changes. In fact, it's been amended several times. You should already know this.

That said, when it comes to Constitionally-enumerated rights, there's very little interest in amending the Constitution to get rid of or modify a right. Rather, what the courts have done is to modify how the clause in question is interpreted. For example, there's no interest in repealing the right to bear arms, enumerated in the second amendment. Instead, as society changes, the courts have modified the interpretation of what a "right to bear arms" means. Similar things have been done with regard to many of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Not only that, but the courts have established that while these rights are sacrosanct in principle, some amount of infringement may be necessary from time to time. Thus the right to free speech is limited. The right to bear arms is limited. Etc.

In practice, therefore, the Constitution is not a sacred work set in stone. It's just that we find it more practical to modify it through interpretation, rather than amendment, whenever possible.

But rights are still rights. You can't interpret a right entirely out of existence. On the other hand, we don't actually interpret the second amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) entirely on what we believe the authors meant. We take that into account, certainly, but we also take into account contemporary practicalities and considerations. That's how we end up with the relatively short list of arms that we have a right to bear.

In conclusion, you're wrong. The Constitution is very much seen as a legal document to be amended, and more importantly, to be re-interpreted over time. The application of the second amendment has been modified repeatedly by the courts over the years.

What we hold sacred is not the document, but the rights it enumerates, and the principle of rule of law.

---

What amendment would you suggest?

 

[acbytesla]

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now. Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

Thomas Jefferson strongly believed that the Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. The average period of time of a generation at the time. That no generation should have the right to bind future generations to their mores and ideas.
He said, "The Earth belongs to the living." He argued that simply having the power to repeal a law was not sufficient because it is not an equivalent to the right to create laws from scratch. He believed that no government is "so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without impediment".

I'm terrified of rewriting our Constitution. That said, there are so many built in flaws of our present Constitution that I don't think we could do much worse. Particularly when SCOTUS ignores the rights of so many and empowers the super wealthy over everyone else.

I know what I would change. I would create an amendment guaranteeing bodily autonomy. I would probably consolidate States into territories. I would also get rid of the second amendment. But that doesn't mean I want to take away all the guns from Americans. Just that I think common sense gun laws are a good idea.

 

[theprestige]

There isn't any limiting principle, it's a convention that society i.e. people abide with. And the world changes, to me the idea that you have to be bound by what an elite decided 250 years ago is insanity.

Not being bound by your laws is insanity.

We're not bound by what the elite decided 250 years ago. Interpretation of the second amendment has been modernized several times over the years. What we're bound by is what we collectively and continuously agree to be bound by. If we wanted to amend the laws we agree to govern us, we could. We often do.

We're not blindly following whatever the authors supposedly had in mind. We never have. We just haven't changed something we continue to agree with.

 

[ahhell]

Not being bound by your laws is insanity.

We're not bound by what the elite decided 250 years ago. Interpretation of the second amendment has been modernized several times over the years. What we're bound by is what we collectively and continuously agree to be bound by. If we wanted to amend the laws we agree to govern us, we could. We often do.

We're not blindly following whatever the authors supposedly had in mind. We never have. We just haven't changed something we continue to agree with.

It more like we can't get a sufficient majority to agree many changes.

I think the changes we might get would easily be for the worse. I bet a lot of folks would be happy with scrapping the first amendment for instance. Lots of folks would scrap federalism which would be terrible. We'd probably end up with something far more democratic with very few limits on majoritarian rule.

 

[theprestige]

It more like we can't get a sufficient majority to agree many changes.

Potato, potato. Collective self-rule is what it is.

I think the changes we might get would easily be for the worse. I bet a lot of folks would be happy with scrapping the first amendment for instance. Lots of folks would scrap federalism which would be terrible. We'd probably end up with something far more democratic with very few limits on majoritarian rule.

Agreed.

 

[acbytesla]

It more like we can't get a sufficient majority to agree many changes.

I think the changes we might get would easily be for the worse. I bet a lot of folks would be happy with scrapping the first amendment for instance. Lots of folks would scrap federalism which would be terrible. We'd probably end up with something far more democratic with very few limits on majoritarian rule.

Maybe.

But I tend to be optimistic. I do believe that certain rights should be untouchable like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

As for Federalism. We can have Federalism without 50 States. where instead there are more balanced populations. Instead of a state of 560,000 has as much veto power as a state with 40 million people. Where a majority of maybe 50,000 people can dictate authority over millions of others.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

They were also invented for hunting. So, period not warranted. They are also fun to shoot at targets. Regardless, it's true that the risk of shootings is the price of gun ownership.

Acbytesla's right about the constitution though, it was meant to be amended, I'd bet the founders would be surprised at how few amendments we have.

No, they really were not. They may have been adapted to hunt, but guns were invented and designed as weapons of war. Ie, to kill humans.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I have a question to the American posters here with regard to what the founders intended. Let's assume that they explicitly intended to be in the exact position that the US is in now. Hell, let's assume further they wanted entirely unrestricted gun ownership, anyone who wants a vulcan chaingun can have one if they can afford it, no limits.

Why should literally anyone in the 21st Century give a ◊◊◊◊ what they thought? Why is it held as nearly sacred and not a legal document to be amended when society gains more information or changes?

I'm wondering, too. We're talking about very fallible and, by today's standards, terrible men writing a founding document and constitution, not a new Bible.

 

[ahhell]

Maybe.

But I tend to be optimistic. I do believe that certain rights should be untouchable like the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

As for Federalism. We can have Federalism without 50 States. where instead there are more balanced populations. Instead of a state of 560,000 has as much veto power as a state with 40 million people. Where a majority of maybe 50,000 people can dictate authority over millions of others.

We've had that discussion I think but that's really a problem due to insufficient appreciation of federalism and balance. If the Feds had less authority over CA it wouldn't matter so much. Also, we could easily add more representatives, but we haven't since the 20s or 30s. Silly that. IIRC there was at least once a amendment proposed that would set the maximum and minimum constituents a Rep could represent.

Congressional Apportionment Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Could theoretically still be ratified.

An amendment I would support, making it easier to amend. Not by a lot but enough that could get something passed ever decade or so. I would also pass one that would let states ban guns if they want.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm wondering, too. We're talking about very fallible and, by today's standards, terrible men writing a founding document and constitution, not a new Bible.

I wouldn't say that by our standards they were terrible men. It is far more complicated than that. Take Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. They were very different and very much alike. Great friends and great enemies. From opposing political parties. Both terrible in their way. Both insanely smart. Adams was pompous, highly religious. Very committed and in love with his wife Abigail. Jefferson a deist, essentially an atheist. Jefferson was a ladies man and a slave holder.

The US were lucky to have them as early leaders. Neither of which however, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

 

[acbytesla]

We've had that discussion I think but that's really a problem due to insufficient appreciation of federalism and balance. If the Feds had less authority over CA it wouldn't matter so much. Also, we could easily add more representatives, but we haven't since the 20s or 30s. Silly that. IIRC there was at least once a amendment proposed that would set the maximum and minimum constituents a Rep could represent.

Congressional Apportionment Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Could theoretically still be ratified.

An amendment I would support, making it easier to amend. Not by a lot but enough that could get something passed ever decade or so. I would also pass one that would let states ban guns if they want.

No I appreciate the checks and balances afforded to us by Federalism. It is the duplication of resources and the abusive imbalance of power that concerns me. Of billions spent to persuade maybe 50,000 voters in Wyoming while ignoring millions of citizens in California and Texas.

It is how the Ethanol policy which at first was almost certainly done with good intentions has been kept after demonstrating it to be a disaster. It is environmentally unsound. It will be a future economic apocalypse if not changed. And politicians on both sides of the aisle ignore the problem because the corn states wield too much power. Power they wouldn't have if they didn't have a lot of US Senators created by the Great Compromise.