3 ms·

I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment pro

I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument. Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process? The process has been used twenty-something times to great success. I'm frustrated with people advocating reinterpreting an aspect of the Constitution when they don't have the popular support needed to amend it.

mistercow 14y ago
While I am pro gun control, I actually agree with you here: we really should have a constitutional amendment to nullify the second amendment. One of the big problems with that is that culturally, the first ten amendments are bulletproof. If the second amendment had been "the right to own slaves shall not be abridged", I think we might be in the same position today of creatively reïnterpreting it rather than besmirching something we have unwisely clad in the nominative armor "Bill of Rights".
jonnathanson 14y ago
"I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument" That's not the argument I'm making. I think you're misreading me, or perhaps I was not perfectly clear. Let's give the reader the benefit of the doubt and assume it's on me. "Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process?" Yes, and that's part of my point. I'm not arguing for a reinterpretation of the Constitution. I'm arguing against the idea that everything in the Constitution is of equivalent weight and is equally sacrosanct, unchanged by time and circumstances. Amendments are our remedies to said change, if/when the need arises. The author's insinuation -- that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite -- is a false equivalency.
- crazy1van 14y ago
  Sorry, I did misinterpret your point. Thanks for being so polite about it. /hat-tip I agree that the importance and relevance of the Constitution does change over time and I agree that Amendments are the tool to deal with those changes.
- jamieb 14y ago
  "that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite" That's not the authors point. The authors point is that you have to take the Constitutions statements as having equal legal force. You are quite entitled to disagree with them to varying degrees, and you are entitled to advocate that the 2nd Amendment should be removed. But you are a hypocrite if you say "The 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation and we can totally ignore it but the 1st or 4th or 14th are sacrosanct". When you argue that you can ignore the 2nd Amendment because you don't like it, then you've basically tossed out the whole document. Why should the government pay any attention to those inconvenient 4th and 14th amendments when "90%" of citizens support ignoring the 2nd?
vec 14y ago
Yeah, but things _were_ different in the 1700s when they wrote it. At the time there was no standing army, each state had a militia and citizens were often responsible for providing their own equipment. The 2nd amendment seems to have been aimed mostly at state governments, sort of a "when we need your militia, you'd better have one we can use". The reading where being armed is a protected right of each individual _is_ a reinterpretation, and a fairly recent one at that. http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ (podcast, but well worth the time) has a wonderful summary of how this view has evolved over the last 2.5 centuries.

mistercow 14y ago

While I am pro gun control, I actually agree with you here: we really should have a constitutional amendment to nullify the second amendment. One of the big problems with that is that culturally, the first ten amendments are bulletproof. If the second amendment had been "the right to own slaves shall not be abridged", I think we might be in the same position today of creatively reïnterpreting it rather than besmirching something we have unwisely clad in the nominative armor "Bill of Rights".

jonnathanson 14y ago

"I don't understand the whole "things were different in the 1800's when they wrote the 2nd amendment" argument" That's not the argument I'm making. I think you're misreading me, or perhaps I was not perfectly clear. Let's give the reader the benefit of the doubt and assume it's on me. "Isn't that why they added the whole Amendment process?" Yes, and that's part of my point. I'm not arguing for a reinterpretation of the Constitution. I'm arguing against the idea that everything in the Constitution is of equivalent weight and is equally sacrosanct, unchanged by time and circumstances. Amendments are our remedies to said change, if/when the need arises. The author's insinuation -- that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite -- is a false equivalency.

crazy1van 14y ago
Sorry, I did misinterpret your point. Thanks for being so polite about it. /hat-tip I agree that the importance and relevance of the Constitution does change over time and I agree that Amendments are the tool to deal with those changes.
jamieb 14y ago
"that you have to take everything in the Constitution at equal value, or else you're a hypocrite" That's not the authors point. The authors point is that you have to take the Constitutions statements as having equal legal force. You are quite entitled to disagree with them to varying degrees, and you are entitled to advocate that the 2nd Amendment should be removed. But you are a hypocrite if you say "The 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation and we can totally ignore it but the 1st or 4th or 14th are sacrosanct". When you argue that you can ignore the 2nd Amendment because you don't like it, then you've basically tossed out the whole document. Why should the government pay any attention to those inconvenient 4th and 14th amendments when "90%" of citizens support ignoring the 2nd?

vec 14y ago

Yeah, but things _were_ different in the 1700s when they wrote it. At the time there was no standing army, each state had a militia and citizens were often responsible for providing their own equipment. The 2nd amendment seems to have been aimed mostly at state governments, sort of a "when we need your militia, you'd better have one we can use". The reading where being armed is a protected right of each individual _is_ a reinterpretation, and a fairly recent one at that. http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ http://backstoryradio.org/straight-shot-guns-in-america-2/ (podcast, but well worth the time) has a wonderful summary of how this view has evolved over the last 2.5 centuries.