Useless Guns Okay in D.C.

so, I decided to comment on your blog since you cried about how no one had, and I actually read this whole thing BEFORE you said that. (By the way, they made me go through a whole form, and if I get spam from them, you're in big trouble, buddy).

So, we have come across the normal problem that always seems to stem from the Constitution (or other documents produced during the early, developmental ye

ars of our country). What did they actually mean? I think the best answer is that it doesn’t really matter because our day to day has changed so much from what it was back in the 1700s. I am someone who believes that the founders/framers not only proof-read the Constitution, but also kept it purposely vague, as they had no idea what the future would bring. I also think that this group of men could hardly agree on anything, and it is a miracle that we managed a final document at all.

What I’m most curious about is the past precedent, which is so often referred to as much as the Constitution. What law did D.C. cite when allowing for the second amendment to be thus violated?

Also, I’m super curious as to where you get all these quotes. Do you seriously sit and look them all up? Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands. It’s also important to note that the Bill of Rights, which includes the first few amendments (including our buddy, #2), was a bargaining chip given to the Anti-Federalists by the Federalists in order to make enough compromises to come out with a finished Constitution. Thus, it makes sense that Jefferson, one of the most influential Anti-Federalists, and Patrick Henry, would be in favor of gun ownership (being as how they wrote the Bill of Rights).

If they couldn’t make up their minds, what makes us think we can now?

p.s. are you happy now? :)

I'm gonna have to disagree with ya there;
"...kept it purposely vague, as they had no idea what the future would bring.

I think they knew exactly what would happen to the power and scope of government: it would get bigger and more intrusive. Democracy wasn't new, and neither were they new at failing.

I don't know if they were vague or if we have twisted their words to mean whatever we want them to. We take "no establishment thereof" when talking about religion to mean the banning of all religious objects from the public square. We take "...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to mean we can say whatever we want whenever we want without consequences from anyone.

There absolutely was an argument between two factions when the Constitution was written, but all arguments stemmed from the distrust of government and the belief that every government thrived on power and expansion. To argue that this is a living, breathing Constitution, is to argue that NO rights are safe from expulsion, given the right circumstance.

You don't think that there was any intention whatsoever to keep the Constitution vague? True, they might have known that the government would grow (and I’m gonna argue that one side of this committee was actually okay with that), but could they really have foreseen the country as it exists today? I don’t think so. I think they were trying to establish a government that wouldn’t fall flat on its face, and one that dictated more substantially than what they came up with could have been oppressive. It’s important to remember that they were living under the rule of the “tyrant king.”

That being said, half of the group wanted a very strict government that didn’t trust the common man. What kind of democracy is that? It’s certainly not a true one.

I stick by my comment about vagueness, or at least a lack of ability to fully agree. They made compromises that didn’t lean toward favoring anyone because they couldn’t come to their own agreement. Men!

Throughout history men have used our Constitution to justify their causes (slavery, secularism, welfare), mostly by twisting it to mean what they need it to mean. If the founders wanted the constitution to be vague, I don't think they would have made it amendable. It is specific, but it can be changed precisely because they couldn't predict specifically what would happen in the future, but could predict vaguely what would.