Anyone promoting strict observance of the Constitution must agree that the Second Amendment guarantees every member of a state militia the right to own a flintlock or a musket.
That is exactly what the Framers were thinking. They didn't know about any kind of weapon someone could \"bear\" that didn't take half a minute to reload after each shot.
Now if you think the Constitution is a \"living document\" that each generation gets to reinterpret according to the needs of the day, we can talk about modern arms.
But wait a minute. Aren't gun rights activists insistent on a strict, originalist interpretation of the Constitution?
I'm confused. Help me out. Because if you think \"arms\" can mean any kind of weapon you can hold in your arms, sign me up for a couple of RPGs--plus a shoulder-mounted Stinger, of course, in case I get mad at the next 747 taking off near my home.
That would be insane to permit, of course. But if \"arms\" don't mean \"sky's the limit\" then it has to mean \"flintlocks\" unless you believe we get to interpret the Constitution as a living doc, in which case the right to bear arms can be constrained by Congress to flintlocks and stay within the Constitution.
What'll it be, folks? The flintlocks the Framers meant (along with those conveniently forgotten crucial words about state militias), or you agree that we can interpret \"arms\" however we wish as a society, and you'll side with all those day-um lib-er-uls who argue for the Constitution being a living document--in this and in all other respects.
Your move.
4 comments:
why it's funny you should ask. i have an MG 3 mounted on a stabilized feldlafette tripod, fitted with an optical periscope sight, with a 100-round belt, and it's all permanently positioned on my balcony.
now go ahead, drive by my house and call me a 'liberal'.
Sounds like there's a need for a constitutional amendment that would define what "arms" are, or at least to grant congress the power to legislate what limits there are upon the right to bear arms.
Liberal is as liberal does. Note that I wasn't commenting on whether Americans had a right to bear arms. I was commenting on what seems to me to be an inconsistency among NRA types.
I favor a liberal interpretation of the Constitution myself, as do most gun rights types--and I qualified as "Expert" on the M1 in boot camp.
The difference between me and NRA types is that I'm honest about my view of the Constitution, and they are not, as far as I've seen.
Nobody has shown me how an originalist view of the Constitution supports letting people on our terrorist watch list being allowed to buy AK-47s.
Most of the problem with the Second Amendment is that it has been so extremely misinterpreted as compared with what the writers were talking about. The point of the entire sentence was military, not civilian. Well-regulated, militia, security, and bear arms are all military terms.
For example, there are two principle meanings of the word 'bear,' one is 'to carry' and the other is 'to apply force.' The phrase 'bear arms' means to apply military force, and since the sentence in question has a totally military context it is safe to conclude the military meaning was intended.
Here are some examples:
The War of 1812 101: An Overview - Military History - About.com
With Britain beginning to bring the full weight of its military might to bear and with Treasury near empty, the Madison Administration began peace talks in ...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/wa of1812/tp/war-of-1812-overview.htm
Don Carlos Buell - Civil War - Union Army - Military History - About ...
Due to an acoustic shadow, Buell remained unaware of the fighting for much of the day and did not bring his larger numbers to bear. Fighting to a stalemate, ...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/UnionLeaders/p/American-Civil-War-Major-General-Don-Carlos-Buell.htm
Wars of Alexander the Great: Battle of Gaugamela - Military History ...
... chose a wide plain for the battlefield as he felt that it would facilitate the use of his chariots and elephants, as well as would allow his greater numbers to bear.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswarsto1000/p/Wars-Of-Alexander-The-Great-Battle-Of-Gaugamela.htm
Civil War: Battle of Chattanooga - Military History - About.com
This error prevented the guns from being brought to bear on the attackers. In one of the war's most dramatic events, the Union soldiers surged up the hill, broke ...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/p/chattanooga.htm
World War II: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Military History - About.com
... when communications were opened and a slow flow of arms began into the ghetto. ... Bringing an average of 2,000 men to bear, Stroop began systematically ...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/p/World-War-Ii-Warsaw-Ghetto-Uprising.htm
American Civil War Turning Points - Military History - About.com
At 1:00 PM, all the Confederate artillery that could be brought to bear opened fire on the Union position along Cemetery Ridge. After waiting approximately ...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/civilwar/a/cwturningpts_2.htm
Indian Wars: Lieutenant General Nelson A. Miles - Military History ...
In the course of the fighting both men were wounded with Howard losing an arm. ... Miles sought to bring high-level influence to bear with the hope of retaining ...
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/1800sarmybiographies/p/Indian-Wars-General-Nelson-A-Miles.htm
World War I: HMS Dreadnought - Military History - About.com
As a result, Dreadnought could only bring eight of its ten guns to bear on a ... one of the largest arms races in history which ultimately culminated with World War...
Can you imagine trying to 'carry' the guns on a dreadnaught?
Why is this important? Because the South had a definite security need to be able to 'apply military force,' i.e., 'bear arms', using all available weaponry against slave rebellions.
It was Virginia which insisted on the addition of the Second Amendment. for this express reason, and no other.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Post a Comment