More Discussion on the U.S. Constitution
A reader notes: Unsurprisingly, the Constitution doesn’t stipulate citizens can adhere to constitutional provisions at their option, or when they feel in the mood! Gun control and removal of automatic weapons is (in my opinion) a worthy objective, but only by lawful, constitutional methods.
I agree with you 100%. No one’s saying that we need not follow the Constitution when it says something we happen not to like. What we (gun control people like me) are saying is that we believe that the Second Amendment was clearly not intended to allow mentally deranged citizens to have access to extra-ordinarily high-powered weapons.
If the founding fathers were here, and became aware of faulty or non-existent background checks, and the existence of automatic weapons, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they’d react; “Are you serious? What type of idiot interprets the Second Amendment as conferring a completely unlimited right to bear arms, especially to people not connected to a legitimate militia?”
I think that the Constitution has to be interpreted to the extent possible in the way that the Founding Fathers intended. Surely it is unlikely that the FFs intended that just anyone, regardless of competence or intent, be permitted to carry weapons like AK47s, bazookas, or keep army tanks in their garages.
As I see it, the FFs intended that people have the right to carry weapons in a well-regulated militia, not necessarily as individuals. In a militia or army, people would be carrying rifles, not necessarily hand guns. Thus, I would be comfortable with banning unlicensed people from carrying hand guns which is the type of gun most commonly misused. As for rifles, I would be comfortable with limiting the size of the magazine.
Frank, while I appreciate the perspective of the strict constructionist, unfortunately the “founding fathers’ wanted to count slaves as 3/5 of a person when it cam to representation in congress but not give them the right to vote. Again women were still considered chattels and also did not have the right to vote. There was serious interest in only giving those who owned property the right to vote.
Then you could say that we are trying to determine what they would have wanted considering today’s sensibilities… and you are back to once again imposing a modern perspective on words written almost 250 years ago.
Breath,
One can attempt to be totally consistent, but generally doing so sometimes makes no sense. We know that the Founding Fathers had slaves, denied women the right to vote, etc. etc. Perhaps it would be better to say that attempting to discern what the FFs had in mind when they wrote the Constitution is only one tool, and not the only tool, that should be used when determining how to apply the Constitution.
Surely we have in some respects advanced in treating people fairly since the FFs wrote the constitution.
Exactly, and a favorite quote of mine is from Ralph Waldo Emerson, ““A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353571-a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-little-minds-adored
Like many things in life we ply a course between some Scylla and Charybdis. In this case between so much consistency that we are essentially dead to thinking and too much speculation that there might as well not be a written document.
I’m familiar with that quote; it’s a good one.
Often politicians, and other people as well, are really put on the spot. If they cling tenaciously to a position or principal, even when evidence indicates that doing so makes no sense, they are criticized for doing so and often that quote is recited to them. However, if they do change positions when information indicates that they should, they are condemned for being inconsistent.
Conditions and circumstances sometimes change. What may once have been reasonable may not be reasonable today. Also, we may have reached conclusions based on faulty evidence in which case being rational requires changing our conclusions when better evidence becomes available.
One of the problems is that when people reach a conclusion, they tend to avoid learning about facts which might force them to change a conclusion.