View Single Post
Old 09-02-2019, 11:57 AM
Jay Z is offline
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The Constitution was written by a bunch of regular human beings not handed down from God. There's no reason to assume it's a perfect document. Hell, they spelled Pennsylvania wrong and they were in that state at the time.

That said, I've already agreed that you can make an argument that the correct interpretation of the second amendment is that the right to own guns is associated with membership in a militia. But you can equally well interpret it as a right held by all individuals regardless of militia membership. And when two equal interpretations are available, I favor the one that gives broader rights.
Over time, the Constitution HAS taken more of a "handed down by God" aspect. May not be right, but I have seen it with my own eyes.

As far as the militia stuff goes, it seems to me that there was either an affinity for it, or the Founders thought it would work better than it did. A militia is completely ineffective as a fighting force. It's why we have the largest effective standing army in the world. The militia never, ever worked.

Rights conflict with each other. People were required to turn in their guns in the old Western towns. It made sense for people to have guns out in the frontier, out of town, when you might have to be your own law, or protect yourself from animal predators. Guns in town were more likely to be used to rob the town or shoot someone else in a drunken argument. They are two different life situations. Controlling the gun population in the town made the town better, made more people want to move to the town. The gun control of the town did not extend outside its borders, rules were different outside the town.

It's clear that 2A meant that some arms were allowed. Did the founders mean that the right to bear arms was absolute, it should trump every other right? You may have the right to free speech. But I can own private property, individually or with a group, and prevent you from setting foot on that property and exercising your free speech right. If the right to bear arms is more absolute, if the rulings are that jurisdictions cannot assemble and make any law controlling the right to bear arms even to a small extent, that is a different matter. Obviously in the old West no one went to the Supremes and sued based on their right to bearing arms should trump all jurisdictions. Today they are doing that. You'd be allowed to have your guns in town, everyone would, the robbery rate and drunking shooting rate would skyrocket.