Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balefire88
I simply don't understand how someone can use the argument, "This is what the original framers intended."
I understand that our laws are based on the Constitution, and that laws cannot contradict it. That's why we have amendments. There's a reason the framers were wrong about slavery, were wrong about women, and were probably wrong about atleast a few other things. It's because they lived over 200 years ago. We don't hold all the same values today, because society has progressed a lot since then, although some would say we've actually regressed. Now this does not mean owning a gun in today's society is wrong. The framers may have been right about that one, but then again, maybe not. They weren't gods, they were men; and men make mistakes.
...
|
And I, in turn, don't understand how we can consider these questions without at least considering intent.
Look at it this way (for a second). There are essentially two discussions that can be had here: 1) What does the Constitution (as amended by the Bill of Rights) say about this issue? (and the auxiliary point of - we know what it says, but what does that mean); and 2) Should we change what the Constitution says because we think it is time for it to say something else.
If these questions aren't the basis for consideration of rights and our relationship to government, we might as well not have a Constitution. You're right the the document isn't inviolate, but until we start talking about how to change it, the sane conversation is to consider what it means.