3 ms·

Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that, but I think Penn and Teller’s description and explanation might appeal to you a little better: https://youtu.

Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that, but I think Penn and Teller’s description and explanation might appeal to you a little better: https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ

mjburgess 5y ago
As of 2008 -- which indicates that this view of the constitution is extremely contemporary, as a legal doctrine. My point wasn't, in any case, about the "facts of the matter". I dont think there are facts about how one should interpret the US constitution. My point was that the commenter I was replying to assumed that these issues "ID for guns", "ID for votes" were somehow prescribed clearly by the constitution -- and one would be hypocritical to defend only one. That view is wholly incorrect. The text of the constitution settles almost no matters. Matters are settled at the interpretive level, and much of what passes for "interpretation" is actually established by the historical tradition of the supreme court. There is no hypocrisy anywhere, because there isnt a stable ideological dogma written down
- TheParkShark 5y ago
  In your previous comment you said claimed the constitution doesn’t give people the right to own guns, I guess you didn’t watch the video in the reply. Says right at the beginning, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. You seem to use your language art skills to talk about the actual conversation instead of contributing to it.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    You mean the video with penn and teller? They're arguing about the placement of a comma: which is exactly my point. I guess you havent understood my point. The constitution does not verbatim say "you have an individual right to own and use weapons". It says, "given the necessity of a millitia". If you whole argument depends on arguing over a comma, then it's pretty clear, there is no "hypocrisy" one way or another. The whole thing is a matter of interpretation.
    - underseacables 5y ago
      Nope, still don’t get it, third time’s a charm?

mjburgess 5y ago

As of 2008 -- which indicates that this view of the constitution is extremely contemporary, as a legal doctrine. My point wasn't, in any case, about the "facts of the matter". I dont think there are facts about how one should interpret the US constitution. My point was that the commenter I was replying to assumed that these issues "ID for guns", "ID for votes" were somehow prescribed clearly by the constitution -- and one would be hypocritical to defend only one. That view is wholly incorrect. The text of the constitution settles almost no matters. Matters are settled at the interpretive level, and much of what passes for "interpretation" is actually established by the historical tradition of the supreme court. There is no hypocrisy anywhere, because there isnt a stable ideological dogma written down

TheParkShark 5y ago
In your previous comment you said claimed the constitution doesn’t give people the right to own guns, I guess you didn’t watch the video in the reply. Says right at the beginning, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. You seem to use your language art skills to talk about the actual conversation instead of contributing to it.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  You mean the video with penn and teller? They're arguing about the placement of a comma: which is exactly my point. I guess you havent understood my point. The constitution does not verbatim say "you have an individual right to own and use weapons". It says, "given the necessity of a millitia". If you whole argument depends on arguing over a comma, then it's pretty clear, there is no "hypocrisy" one way or another. The whole thing is a matter of interpretation.
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Nope, still don’t get it, third time’s a charm?