I’m not 100% sure our modern day view of the Constitution really comports with the Framers view at the time. To say they viewed it as the supreme and literal document is not all that clear. Think of the intense amount of states rights issues at the same and the concern as to how to create a republic of independent states, yet also united under a common flag for the country.
Regardless, the Framers may have viewed the right to bear arms as being necessary to protect against government encroachment, but that also assumes a monotlithic view of what the Framers wanted. The Jefferson quote is an interesting one, but from all I have read of Jefferson, it is typical of his spouting off these kinds of quotes for the sake of posterity viewing him in a particular way. OK, gotta stop before I get off on an entire Jefferson thread (although he certainly is a fascinating topic to discuss… a complex and, at times, very conflicted man in his views and how he lived his life).
My overall point is the same as my previous post - the Constitution (like any statute… and in a way, it is the grandest of statutes) has to be interpreted. To interpret it the exact same way as it was thought of in the late 1700’s in comparison to today will not work. Think of it this way: if the Framers could foresee all of the changes to come in the future, would their intent have remained (again, working from your assumption that ALL of the Founders shared this view) the same? They did the best they could for their time and created an absolutely remarkable document… but it also has to be a living document as well. Again, your view is one discussed throughout all of the Con. Law classes I took in law school and it is one way of interpreting things (it’s a bit like Scalia - original intent approach).
In terms of a standing army, that was always a huge point of contention at that time, mostly for the reasons you described before (fear of oppression by the army through a rogue general seeking to topple a fragile democracy and assume power all to himself… heck, there were some who thought that of Washington).
So to stop my rambling, I would ask how it is that the State is suddenly degraded into a form of tyrrany based on gun control laws. Now, I know you have a lot of views on the State in general, but the theme of your post strongly moves down the line that the State is suddenly going to come and round up all of our guns one day and subject us to some kind of martial law with zero rights. I see so little evidence to support that as a future event to truly worry about. I’m sure you have your list.
Holy crap, I think Al might finally have got something right. Bearing arms is all about power in the hands of the population and nothing to do with recreation.
I’ve gotten many things right, even by your own standards. I know that you are somewhat of a Libertarian, and in my escapades on this forum I have frequently taken up classical Libertarian positions on a variety of issues, most notably foreign policy. If you have never noticed anything with which to agree in my posts then you likely haven’t been paying enough attention, or you allowed the prejudices of others to taint your judgement.
You would do well to put an end to your futile attempts of reasoning with the neocon fascists on this board, for they are simply unwilling or incapable of addressing opposing view points, as you yourself have pointed out on several occasions. I, on the other hand, comprehensively and voraciously address every single argument that is thrown my way, and there is hardly a topic that I can’t or won’t write a constructive, well-supported essay about.
I may not be your friend, but I’m certainly not your true enemy on this board. Other people are, and you need to identify them.
[quote]Al Shades wrote:
I’ve gotten many things right, even by your own standards. I know that you are somewhat of a Libertarian, and in my escapades on this forum I have frequently taken up classical Libertarian positions on a variety of issues, most notably foreign policy. If you have never noticed anything with which to agree in my posts then you likely haven’t been paying enough attention, or you allowed the prejudices of others to taint your judgement.
You would do well to put an end to your futile attempts of reasoning with the neocon fascists on this board, for they are simply unwilling or incapable of addressing opposing view points, as you yourself have pointed out on several occasions. I, on the other hand, comprehensively and voraciously address every single argument that is thrown my way, and there is hardly a topic that I can’t or won’t write a constructive, well-supported essay about.
I may not be your friend, but I’m certainly not your true enemy on this board. Other people are, and you need to identify them.
I’ll reply to the other posts later.[/quote]
Fascinating. I have not the slightest idea how a Con Law 101 discussion on Constitutional interpretation and viewing the Constitution as being something other than your personal, set in stone view of it marks me as a “neocon fascist” (especially since that viewpoint is responsible for a host of current liberties you enjoy today, most notably the right to privacy). However, enjoy whatever title you wish to throw my way. I couldn’t care less.
