Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
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.
|
I think I was wrong to say don't use the argument "This is what the Framers intended." I shouldn't be telling you not to consider what the Framers intended. I want you to consider what the Framers intended. I honestly believe that historical study provides us with a best estimate of their intentions. I am no by no means a historical expert, but have studied it farther than most college students except history majors. I personally believe that the historical circumstances I explained before best explain the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, and so there is no need for it anymore. However, there is no way for me to prove this explicitly. I can just offer what I have read in history texts, and show what was likely to be their reasoning. (Further reading also tells that the army of that day was extremely poorly underfunded, and had mostly broken up once the major fighting was over. This means, under new attack, the framers were possibly afraid that the country would be vulnerable.)
I just think that the Framers intended a lot of things for the 1790s because they could not see that far into the future. No one really can accurately say what's going to happen 50 years from now. So feel free to consider their intent, I just think people are making a mistake when they use it as a basis for their argument. That's why I said I'm willing to be pro-guns if someone was to post detailed analysis of crime rates and things like that. (I'm not anti-guns either, I just don't own one, and don't mind if my neighbor owns one. I think major gun crimes are much more of a socio-economic issue. Being lucky enough to be in the upper-middle class, I think the peopel around me and I are relatively lucky to be untouched by this issue.) I see crime as the most relevant issue when it comes to guns today, especially in terms of self-defense as some have mentioned is its intent; not tyranny from domestic and foreign government. So, let's consider what fits best for our soceity today, and not stick exactly to what people 200 years ago, no matter how brilliant and forward-thinking they were, said.
Disclaimer: I don't feel very clear-headed. I just woke up, so if any of my thoughts sound downright jumbled, forgive me.