I feel he handwaves the question of the continuing legal relevance of the second amendment:
A constitution establishes the fundamental principles by which a country is governed. Yes, it would be pointless if it was allowed to change every day. But it would be worse than pointless if we were forced to follow it no matter what, forevermore.
Constitutions can and do change. Indeed, isn’t that what an amendment is?
Given that the proposition that the 2nd amendment begins with, is questionable at best, I think it is appropriate to consider whether the whole thing has validity any more.
FWIW I actually lean towards gun rights in my personal views, but not for constitutional reasons.
Are you saying, in other words, that the Second Amendment is a dead letter for practical purposes, like the Third Amendment prohibition against quartering soldiers? Cecil himself addresses the question:
Others have argued that the phrase “well-regulated” means simply practiced, in good working order, functional; it appears to have this meaning for example in the Federalist #29, written contemporarily with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and that the word “disciplined” is used for the modern meaning of regulated.
ETA: Both Cecil and legal scholars have pointed out the poor clarity of the Second Amendment, and it’s possible this was deliberate: going by the state constitutions at the time, there were differences of opinion of whether the right to keep and bear arms should be collective or individual. But in either interpretation, the states didn’t want the federal government to have the power to disarm their militias, so a compromise wording was chosen to get that principle established in the Constitution.
It was a simple spelling mistake. The founding fathers anticipated the eighties fashion trend of rolled-up sleeves, whose exponents included bands such as Mr. Mister, and it was the right to bare arms they hoped to enshrine. “Militia” was late 18th century slang for “synth-pop combo” and by well-regulated they meant it had to have a particularly tight rhythm section.*
Some interpret as the right to wear muscle shirts, others say it’s clear that the founding fathers never anticipated the invention of the muscle shirt and members of the general population should not have access to such powerful clothing.
An interesting take on the subject one that certainly warrants a further look. Perhaps the founding fathers meant to give US citizens “the right to bear alms”, on the basis that even the most destitute of these large carnivores have no need for money, lacking even the most rudimentary understanding of commerce as they do, and if a misguided do-gooder were to give down-on-their-luck ursines cash, it would be entirely proper for said US citizen to confiscate it for their own use.
Actually, “well-regulated” means having plenty of fiber in one’s diet. This was written in after the experience of the Revolutionary War, in which large numbers of soldiers were on the sick list from diarrhea and constipation.
No, I mean that we don’t need militias any more, and that it is significant that modern weapons are so much more effective than when the Constitution was established.
And I don’t think Cecil addresses it at all. He ducked it.
Colin asked “…if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution still holds water today since the intent was to provide guns and protection against the other side of the puddle”.
So Cecil “corrected” Colin that what he meant was: Does it still have legal relevance?, which is trivially true because it’s in the Constitution. It’s not what Colin was getting at at all.
The plain fact is that “Is it time to reevaluate the Second Amendment? If only so that those who argue can at least now argue an up-to-date amendment?” has at least two broad ambiguities, and that Cecil’s readings are as good as any, especially considering the limited space available for a newspaper column.
As now, in the 1790s gunsmithing was precise engineering but the makeshift cellars where many weapons were produced by moonlighting amateurs were dank, dark and dangerous places to work. The Founding Fathers were also aware that many weapons produced under these suboptimal conditions were faulty as a consequence and had malfunctioned causing as much injury and disability to those in close proximity to the gun as those in close proximity to the target.
Hence “The light to bore arms shall not be infringed” was one of the first examples of occupational health and safety reforms.
I disagree. He asked the question he wished he’d been asked, instead of what he was actually being asked. The small size of the newspaper column isn’t an excuse for that.
(not that I’m taking this that seriously – I know it’s a lighthearted / humourous column)
Unless you are the original, long-ago Colin, you cannot know what was “actually being asked.” Colin’s wording is sloppy, and Cecil’s reading is entirely possible.
His central question was: “I asked if the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution still holds water today since the intent was to provide guns and protection against the other side of the puddle.”
His final questions are clearly meant in that same context i.e. If you accept this premise, is it time to reevaluate the second amendment?
Cecil’s response is “What you want to know is what the framers of the Bill of Rights intended the Second Amendment to mean, and whether that intention has any continuing legal relevance
…
The answer to the second question is easy: yes, else why have a Constitution?”
That’s just not a reasonable paraphrasing of what Colin was asking.
Colin believes he already has a reasonable idea why the amendment exists and implicitly accepts that we must follow it while it is in the Constitution. He’s asking whether we should consider changing the constitution because the original reasons are no longer valid.
I’m sorry, but “I asked if the Second Amendment… still holds water today…,” simply cannot be interpreted as “implicitly accept[ing] that we must follow it while it is in the Constitution”.
I think Cecil did misphrase Colin’s intent. Colin was asking if it was time to* update* the Constitution with regards to the Second Amendment, so we would have an updated amendment to argue over. Cecil says that of course the Constitution is still relevant. But that doesn’t mean that the justification for the second amendment still applies, or that amending the Constitution isn’t valid.
Colin wants to know if it’s time to amend the Constitution. He accepts that the Constitution is relevant, just that the second amendment might need some finessing.
For the first part of the question, Colin states his assumed interpretation of the justification for the Second Amendment. Cecil rightly tries to rephrase the question without that assumption.
It’s implicit in the sum of what he’s saying. If he really believed that we can ignore parts of the constitution we disagree with, why would he be suggesting we amend it?
Agreed. Alternatively, Cecil could have rejected the final questions because the premise they are based on is questionable. But I agree he does the right thing to rephrase the question.
So, to clarify: Cecil translates Colin’s post into two questions. The first question is a slight re-framing but was absolutely necessary.
The second is simply not what Colin was asking.
As an impartial observer (albeit that I am a countryman of the country that the founding fathers threw out), may I make an independent (if you will pardon the expression) comment:
Surely the point is not what the authors meant in December 1791, when the amendment was drafted, but what should be done today… ?
Now I do not profess to be an expert on 18th century history, but I would warrant that the founding fathers didn’t spend anything like that on defence (note the English spelling)… such that giving the populace the right to bear arms may not be quite as necessary as it was in 1791. Perhaps it should be changed? For good.
As South Africans can most recently tell, having lost the beautiful Reeva Steenkamp to 4 bullets from her boyfriend, giving ordinary private citizens the right to “bear arms” can often have the most horrid of conseqeunces: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/africa/article3690834.ece
Time for change?
Perhaps the incumbent (Mr Obama) can do something drastic here, for the public good, and make a statement for the 21st century to follow? After all, it is not like he needs to worry about being voted back in…!