Conversation on the U.S. Constitution
I thought readers might enjoy a discussion I’m having with 2GreenEnergy mega-supporter Cameron Atwood.
Craig: I’m amused by all these “Constitutionalists.” As distinguished from whom? People who believe the Constitution can be trivialized? How many of them are there? Are there any? The gun control people (including me) don’t want to overturn the Second Amendment; we just think a) based on its wording, the right in question turns around the idea of a militia, and b) insofar as we have more advanced firearms than muskets today, there needs to be a conversation about what arms can be borne. Are there people who think individual citizens should have RPGs and nuclear weapons?
Having a Constitution and interpreting its meanings in today’s world are two different things.
Cameron: Agreed, and our Constitution is a living document, contrary to the beliefs of some “strict constructionists.”
While I do recognize and affirm that the 2nd Amendment does enshrine and defend a person’s individual birthright to keep and bear arms, I believe it reasonable to interpret that as “small arms.” I’d define that term to exclude heavy machine guns, and explosive devices like grenades and mines, and the like.
The debate of the day was informed by English Common Law and centered around self-defense, and the defense of one’s home and family, as well as community defense and militia readiness. That said, folks should not be permitted their own personal Howitzer. 🙂
The crafters of our Constitution were highly reasoned in their positions, and artful with language. I think it’s helpful to read the 2nd Amendment in the language of the day, and to use the following comparison to illustrate the way the language of the amendment works:
“A literate population being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of persons to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”
The phrase “A literate population being necessary to the security of a free state” implies no limitation on the strength of the birthright of the people. It merely provides some important reasoning in defense of that birthright.
We can look at the specific language of the laws. We can try and stand straight and proud saying that we are directing our attention to the problem, but are we really?
There is a problem in the US. Some think it is the law. Some think it is crackpots. But if the recent campaign cycle, and popular movements can be understood as a whole, people are frustrated by corporatism and marginalization of individual rights.
A manifestation of that is how some seize upon the second amendment as a last bastion. I know these people because I know people from many walks of life.
And then there are policy makers who are a product and part of the system (as we all are to some extent.) They find it too easy (even unconsciously) to look with some disdain on those who want to own lots of guns. To them the gun owners are like wilful teenagers who lack judgement. But the gun owners share a perspective of children of the ’60’s who looked at their parents and judge them hypocrites and liars.
It is a difficult bridge to traverse. To do so within the narrow confines of gun legislation is going to be difficult. To do so within the environment of corporate interests and media campaigns will be nothing short of miraculous. There is plenty of blame for all to take a share if not a bath.
But if we are going to play the popular “tinder” game with guns then I guess you’ll probably swipe left for flame throwers and 6000 round/minute mini-guns too. (Both of which are now legal in some jurisdictions.)
Craig,
I’m a citizen of two countries which have very strict gun laws. Both the UK and Australia do not permit the possession of fire arms for private self-defense.
UK police remain largely unarmed.
Private ownership of hands guns are strictly controlled and discouraged in both jurisdictions, although licensed sporting rifles and shotguns are permitted, especially in rural areas.
Neither nation has a strong formal “Constitution” as can be found in the US. The bedrock of US law and organization can be found in its adherence to the US Constitution.
Th US Constitution provides very clear guild lines for modernizing or changing the Constitution. The Constitution provides a forum and tribunal for interpretation of the Constitution, the US Supreme Court.
Unsurprisingly, the Constitution doesn’t stipulate citizens can adhere to constitutional provisions at their option, or when they feel in the mood ! Nor does it provide for unqualified opinion to overrule the US Supreme court, or obey only those interpretations that may suit .
It does allow, ( in deed guarantees), citizens the right to amend or change the Constitution through lawful process involving gaining the support of their fellow citizens.
Gun control and removal of automatic weapons is (in my opinion) a worthy objective, but only by lawful, constitutional methods.