[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Dennis J Perkins]

>>
>>The constitution affirms your right to bear arms.  It does not specify 
>>the type of firearm but you need only look at what people owned when the 
>>constitution was signed to see that guns were definitely meant. 
>>Considering that most individuals would not have been able to afford a 
>>cannon, the framers might have thought it obvious what they meant.  Or 
>>maybe they meant cannons too.
> 
> 
> Sure, I agree, but when it comes to making laws, one can not simply say
> 'look at what people owned ...'  A law needs to be very specific.
> Trying to fit that specificity in to the vagueness of the 2nd Amendment
> is the issue at hand.

Our laws aren't necessarily very specific either.  And when you are 
dealing with a document that is still in use after more than 200 years, 
you must look at the meaning of words back then.  And look at what 
people did.

What seems very clear to us might be very vague 100 years from now.  Or 
the day after it was passed.

>>The constitution does not require you to belong to a militia.  Otherwise 
>>the federal govt would have "tried" to confiscate firearms after the 
>>constitution was ratified.  And look at the definition of militia at 
>>that time.  It probably included all able-bodied men in time of war and 
>>did not apply to a permanent organization.
> 
> 
> It actually is not at all clear what the Constitution included the word
> militia for.  It says:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed"
> 
> I don't think it means that you have to be in a militia, but there is
> room for debate.  And they obviously had militias in mind, as they used
> the word.  A big blunder, I think, on their part.  Regardless of whether
> we like, there is at least partially valid argument for the 2nd as
> assurance of a national Gard type entity.  The argument is weak, but
> that doesn't make it go away. 

The militia of the time provided their own weapons.  Without a standing 
army, they were the main defense of the colonies except when England 
sent troops to America for war.

The National Guard is a federal entity with state control most of the 
time.  The militia were local and state entities.

The constitution does not grant the army the right to bear arms.  It 
didn't need to.  The army is part of the govt and the rights belong to 
the people, not the govt.


> I realize that a militia may not be permanent, may not be the army,
> etc., but they did have had some kind of organization in mind.

Agreed.

>>That the constitution seems vague in the definition of firearm is not 
>>the fault of the founding fathers. They could not have foreseen that our 
>>weapons would become much more dangerous.
> 
> 
> It does not matter who is or is not to blame.  We can't have vagueness
> in something as important as our Constitution.

Why not?  The more rigid you make it, the less it can adapt to changing 
conditions.

>>What do the Federalist Papers say about this?  They were written to help 
>>argue in favor of the constitution.
>>
> 
> 
> I don't know, but it doesn't really matter either.  They wouldn't have
> the force of law, and were applicable to a time long since past.  What
> matters now is what we should have our laws say *now.*

It seems to me that the constitution was also applicable to times past. 
    Does that mean it no longer applies?

The Federalist Papers were written by some of the founding fathers.  If 
they don't know what the constitution meant, no one can.