"As I pointed out before, the revolutionaries who wrote the document could only
see history, the present, and the future through their somewhat narrow
perspectives of recent experiences,"
< And you see things only through the narrow lens of your present feelings. Everyone is
limited to knowing the past and their own present, so what is your point? The framers
were great students of history and government. Their debates concerned what they
knew of republics and democracies, and what is required for them to survive. They left
a mechanism for altering that document, the amending process.>
I am obviously arguing that simply because a law was written historically, it may not be valid forever. Even if you can argue that the writers of the Bill of Rights intended for individuals to bear arms, and there is considerable debate about whether that is their intent, so what?
"My point about the third amendment is that, obviously, unlike the Ten
Commandments or something, it was designed for a particular set of historical
circumstances, not to be a timeless document."
< You'll have to point out the part that says "This Amendment becomes null and void
after xxxx years". I'm having trouble finding it. As far as I can see, it is still illegal for the
government to quarter troops in your house.>
I am simply pointing out that other parts of the Bill of Rights are decidedly irrelevant today, and the Second Amendment may be, as well.
" Are you saying that decisions by our contemporary courts are unimportant?"
< Nice try. You need to read it again. I asked, since you like to cite Supreme Court
decisions as being authoritative, whether you wish to stand by Dred Scott? Hmmm??>
I asked you if you could cite any Supreme Court decisions as concurring with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that individual citizens are given the right to bear arms for their own private use. I would suggest that a notable absence of court rulings interpreting the amendment this way might be significant. Certainly you can cite no preponderance of court opinion supporting your point of view. What on earth does this have to do with Dred Scott? My entire argument about the Second Amendment is based on my OPINION that just because an Amendment was written two centuries ago, it may not be valid now for an entirely different scenario, or good for contemporary society. Is Dred Scott the current law of the land? No! Modern decisions for modern societies!! Exactly my point!!!!!
" we will be stuck in sort of a colonial Williamsburg anarchy"
< Where did you get this idea? Williamsburg wasn't troubled with anarchy, in fact it was
the capital of Virginia. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?>
Of course I know what I am talking about. The fact that you may not agree does not mean I am not making sense. Did you see "Groundhog Day"? It is about being stuck somewhere endlessly, reliving the same day over and over again. Colonial Williamsburg is a historical reinactment, someplace you could go today. I see the entire country as somehow living stuck like that--and the anarchy is in relationship to being stuck while the society is destroyed--if America is governed knee-jerk style in the future by the IMPLIED, but perhaps not even any longer relevant, notion that we have the individual rights forever to bear arms, no matter how detrimental to society as a whole it may be.
" Do you believe in the American system of checks and balances?"
< I do. Do you?>
Great--we seem to agree on something, although I am pretty sure the devil is in the details!!
" Are you saying that decisions by our contemporary courts are unimportant?"
< Oh, since we seem to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy answerable to no one, I could
hardly call them unimportant. But I think they are often unConstitutional, as does
Justice Scalia, among others.>
There is a good reason there are NINE Supreme Court justices!!! Hey, too bad that nice Warren Court died off or something!!!!
" While the NRA would like everyone to believe that their view of the right of
individuals to own guns in an unregulated way has been accepted by the courts
as the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, I don't believe it has,"
< Fortunately, we don't have to debate your beliefs. I don't belong to the NRA or read
their material, so you'll have to save that debate for someone else. But I'll be glad to
post the views of Justice Joseph Story regarding the 2nd Amendment. Story knew a
bit about the subject having been a Supreme Court Justice from 1811 to 1845. Of
course, he may be subject to Christine's Law of Obsolesence, just like those pesky
rights that you object to.>
What does what happened in 1845 have to do with this? Can we never move towards the present and future, and explore some of the negative things guns do in our society in addition to your views? Oh, and I am questioning NRA beliefs. I think we should debate those!!!!! They seem very similar to yours.
" I find particularly illogical your implication"
< Christine, since when do you have a problem with illogic?>
I find this comment condescending, Freddy. Do you think we could discuss this issue politely?? And perhaps when we are finished, we could talk about Catholic complicity with the Nazis in France, which you insisted was implausible and untrue, as I recall, but which the Vatican has just acknowledged. You are not always totally correct or perfect, and I like it better when we all acknowledge that more than one point of view may have some validity, or at least should be suffered politely. |
