Re:The Second Amendment: Original Intent
by elthran on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @08:22AM
(#10887205)
Yeah, as a Brit, I've never fully understood the Constitution and its related documents being so glorified and set in stone - Especially when discussing the 2nd Amendment - Its an amendment, so obviously the founding fathers intended for the documents to be changeable
And when 2/3 of the states support that change, it'll happen.
The whole point of the constitution is that it is not driven by politics or emotional events. It is changed when a super majority of our citizens / states feel it should be changed.
I don't like the ambiguity in the second amendment, but allowing an emotional event to be the catalyst to circumvent one of the other liberties enshrined in the constitution is scary.
Regardless, with the advent of 3D printing, it's a stupid fucking argument anyway. Over the next few decades, every evil doer will be able to print a weapon.
"The gestation period of some species of opossum being seven months, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed."
Even if there isn't a species of opossum that gestates for seven months, free speech might still be a good idea. Or it might not. Either way, the first statement's truth value doesn't change the command.
Now, to be fair: Compared to the founding fathers, we know much more about pretty much everything. I don't really care what they thought was best. I care about what is best for society. If that means more restrictions on guns, ok. If that means fewer restrictions on guns, ok. If it means some other thing, great. Deferring to previous generations makes no sense. We don't do that for disciplines such as math, biology, chemistry, or engineering. Why should we do it for law?