One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

Gun banners-especially those who whine about the Heller decision (which didn't go nearly far enough but Scalia was worried about an intellectually fading and erratic Justice Kennedy succumbing to Stevens' lobbying so he had to fluff some clearly unconstitutional prior federal laws) constantly claim that the founders didn't intend an UNFETTERED RIGHT of individuals to own whatever guns they want. To prove this idiotic claim, they dishonestly intertwine state laws (which the founders had no jurisdiction to change) with the bill of rights and Article One, Section Eight. These dishonest "Scholars" claim that since the founders left alone STATE restrictions on gun ownership, they must have believed those were proper and at the SAME TIME must have felt that restrictions at a FEDERAL Level were also proper and thus claim the second amendment was NOT a complete bar on federal action

This fraudulent analysis fails obviously on two fronts

1) the founders were only charged with creating a federal government that the STATES would agree to and

2) state laws were not something they had any say about-indeed, that state laws concerning the carrying or use of weapons were KNOWN to the founders further cuts against any view that they would want to empower similar and redundant laws at the federal level/

In conclusion, the founders never gave the federal government any powers and their knowledge of state "infringements" is hardly grounds to misconstrue their intent concerning the new federal government

 

Very good opinion on the right to private gun ownership I think. Or was it the opposite I'm confused.

 

the issue is this-gun banners claim the founders did not intend an absolute bar on federal gun control because they allowed state interference to remain. They didn't have any jurisdiction over state powers unless the states themselves agreed to it. I thought the argument was rather patent and obvious. I assert that since the founders knew the states had the power to regulate improper gun use, they saw no need to give the new federal government superfluous and redundant power in the same area. Article One Section Eight is completely devoid of the new government being given any such power-a fact that the gun banners ignore completely

 

Thanks so much for clearing that up for me. I'll take that explanation with me to my grave.

 

have you not encountered gun banners before who say that if the founders intended the second to be a complete bar on infringements (by the federal government) why didn't they do something about state infringements?

 

Oh gosh. Anti-gun loons lie to make a point.

We are told the 2nd Amendment hinges on the well-regulated militia.
The well-regulated militia requires access to the weapons necessary for it to carry out its various mission - not the least of which is to supplement the standing army.
For that, the well-regulated militia requires weapons on par with... the standing army.
Thus, the 2nd protects the right of the people to own and use such weapons.

So, they're right - they did not intend to protect an unfetter right to own whatever guns we want - for firearms are not the only weapons necessary for the militia to carry out its missions.
The militia, see, requires Weapons of War.

 

We really shouldn't care about what the founders wanted.

They weren't given the bill of rights on a tablet of stone from god like Moses.

 

If the Constitution - inc. the bill of rights - can mean anything, it means nothing.
Your "living constitution" argument is that of someone who wants the court to change the meaning of the constitution to their liking because they know they do not have the support to actually amend the constitution to that end.

 

I never said that the Constitution could mean anything.

The hero worship of the founders means we will never be able to pass any amendment that clarifies the bill of rights.

We can't have campaign finance reform with the 1st amendment in it's current form.

We can't have meaningful gun control with the 2nd amendment it it's current form.

We are never going to be able to get a constitutional amendment passed that address either of those things, because too many people think the founders were infallible beings.

 

If not what the people who wrote it intended, then anything.

Not at all true - you just need to get enough people to agree with you.

Sounds ti me like the 1st and 2nd are working as intended.
In any event:
Not at all true - you just need to get enough people to agree with you.

And thus, you prove my point:
Your "living constitution" argument is that of someone who wants the court to change the meaning of the constitution to their liking because they know they do not have the support to actually amend the constitution to that end.

 

I wasn't making a "living constitution" argument.

I was saying that people think too much of the founders. That is all i said, you assumed everything else.

 

Your recipe for tyranny duly noted.

 

A couple of things. When you suggest that just "some" amendments preclude you from your tyranny, why should we only assume that you mean to limit yourself to just these? I mean, you could, for example, take the democrats greatest desire and suggest that democrats can't own slaves or reform to allow it with the 13/14th amendments the way they are.....

So, shall we conclude that really, you want to ensure that only democrats can win elections, and that you want to disarm the public who might really be against your ultimate desire to reinstate slavery then?

 

If the Constitution should not mean what the people who created it intended it to mean, then what?

 

Again, you are assuming that I said more than the words I said.

 

Gun control was pretty strict back them, so I'm not sure where you these ideas about the founders views on the issue.

Standing army? No, but obviously it required weapons and trained and disciplined fighters aka 'well regulated militia'. Well regulated militia would not have criminals, drunkards, junkies, children, mentally ill etc, most of which are excluded already by our current laws.

 

You said:
We really shouldn't care about what the founders wanted.
OK...
If not, then with regard to the Constitution, et al, what should we care about?

Ok...
How are their arguments and intentions invalid?

 

We shouldn't care about what the founders wanted.

 

Can't answer the questions, eh?

 

Your questions have no meaning in the context of my statement. You have assumed some other context and started asking questions, that i couldn't care less about because they had nothing to do with what I said.

 

You said, with regard to the Constitution, we should not care what the founders wanted.
I asked: If not (what they wanted), then with regard to the Constitution, what should we care about?

This question is --entirely-- within the context of your statement.

 

I didn't say what you think I said.

We shouldn't care what the founders wanted. - that is what I said.

 

If not what they wanted, then, with regard to the Bill of rights, what should we care about?

 

We should care about the problems we have today and what we should do about them.

We can make the constitution whatever we want if we stop treating it as if it was bestowed upon us by god. It's just words on paper, we can put whatever words we want on it.

 

You can. All you need is enough people to agree with you.
As they intended.
See? Easy.