HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Civil Liberties (Group) » Strict Constructionists a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:30 PM

Strict Constructionists and the Second Amendment

So, in the spirit of strict constructionism, letís apply that to the Second Amendment. Individuals can stock up on all the muzzle loaders, crossbows, longbows, swords, pikes, and battle-axes they want, but any weapon more advanced than what was available in 1791 can be banned by local authorities. Furthermore, in keeping with that strict constructionist interpretation, violators can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sentenced to very lengthy prison terms.

Repeat offenders, at least at first, may unfortunately have to be hanged just to get the point across that We The People are serious about this. Recidivism would thus be low after awhile.

This way, the peopleís right to keep and bear arms is NOT infringed, and the peopleís right to send their kids to school or to the movies without fear of being mowed down by automatic weapons is likewise not infringed.

Whatís so unreasonable about that? Iím sure most of the Founding Fathers would approve.

http://my.firedoglake.com/ohiogringo/2012/12/15/a-modest-proposal-in-support-of-the-second-amendment/

===============================

Couldn't agree more. Flintlocks and bayonets and swords were what the Founding Fathers knew. Strict constructionism applies to the technology then available.

And no one is interpreting the Second Amendment as allowing citizens to carry bazookas, grenades, and rocket launchers while driving around in their Tank. So seems there must be some limits on how Americans can and cannot bear arms. Or maybe there isn't. Maybe that will be the new frontier, the next generation's protection.

16 replies, 3060 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply Strict Constructionists and the Second Amendment (Original post)
bucolic_frolic Dec 2012 OP
Hoyt Dec 2012 #1
echo216610 Dec 2012 #3
Hoyt Dec 2012 #5
antigop19667 Jan 2013 #12
immoderate Dec 2012 #2
echo216610 Dec 2012 #4
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #6
cmclane28 Jan 2013 #7
CJCRANE Jan 2013 #8
Name removed May 2013 #16
virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #9
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #10
ebayisajoke Jan 2013 #11
Lone --- Wolf Mar 2013 #13
In_The_Wind Mar 2013 #14
sallyjojo Mar 2013 #15

Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:33 PM

1. Even callous right winger Scalia says restrictions are Constitutional.


Of course, those steeped in guns ignore that, just as they ingnore "Milita," etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:08 AM

3. the definition of militia

 

when the constitution was written was all able bodied males over the age of 16.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to echo216610 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:13 AM

5. Not true. Plus, the gun culture says, 16 - 45. So if you are over 45, turn em in.


I think it would help if you do some more research on this if you really care what it meant.

A good place to start is Justice Stevens' Dissent in Heller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:44 AM

12. +100. Couldn't agree more

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:46 PM

2. The Constitution doesn't say you have to be a "strict constructionist."

That's voluntary.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:10 AM

4. when the constituition was written

 

the only weapons were owned by the people, the government didn't have any weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:02 PM

6. It is POSSIBLE (though probably really pushing it) to come to such a conclusion

It is not the most likely interpretation which is exactly which time frame of weapon is not at issue (I honestly don't see how such is even inferred any more than free press not applying to TV and radio) but establishment of the guarantee of a principle.

I also see an acceptance of a level of parity with even the military, if such was issue division would already be set.
At the time, folks might very well come to to serve with a better weapon than was ever going to be issued to them.
Hell, even very recently I know some cops bought their own semi-autos and only more recently got the option or were just issued semi-autos.

The debate if commoners should be allowed to be armed is ancient, the argument of scale to a soldier or policeman is pretty new and not really supported by reality until really the machine gun "ban" in response to gangs motivated by prohibition. A solution to a problem that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:33 AM

7. Please let's not forget WHY this amendment was added to begin with

And why it was deemed important enough to be listed as the 2nd amendment. The fundamental reason for this very important amendment to the constitution was to protect the people from a tyrannical government that would seek to oppress them, period. It doesn't matter what kind of weapons existed then, or now. I wouldn't consider myself to be "strict constitutionalist", but I certainly won't be one who tries to add detail that isn't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cmclane28 (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:31 PM

8. I always assumed "the militia" was meant to protect against foreign invasion...

there is no mention of "tyrannical government" in the 2nd amendment.

And surely "the militia" is part of the government? (Or at least called upon to be used by the government)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #8)


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 06:47 PM

9. Understand the potential danger of pushing such an argument against a civil right...

Couldn't agree more. quill pens and hand cranked presses and town crier were what the Founding Fathers knew. Strict constructionism applies to the technology then available.

And no one is interpreting the Second Amendment as allowing citizens to carry Cell Phones, computers, and tv while riding around in their buggy. So seems there must be some limits on how Americans can and cannot exercise free speech. Or maybe there isn't. Maybe that will be the new frontier, the next generation's protection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If such thinking is OK for one amendment in the bill of rights, it is of for all of them........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:09 PM

10. Then get off the Internet.

The Internet didn't exist, so it should be banned under this argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:52 AM

11. 2nd Amendment

The Constitution was not violated. We need to stop kids from getting guns and killing our families. I support the measures and I also support my right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Wed Mar 13, 2013, 08:41 PM

13. Apply equally

By your logic the government should be able to monitor, and censor anything you say in this forum. If you apply the first amendment as ridiculously as you apply the second you would have to type set your opinion an a wooden press with lead type dab it with ink from a leather pad, press it on homemade paper, and hang it to dry, then go nail it to a tree for others to read. What is so unreasonable about that. So why do you want to limit one amendment, but not the others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lone --- Wolf (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 14, 2013, 06:03 AM

14. Hello ~ Lone --- Wolf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bucolic_frolic (Original post)

Mon Mar 18, 2013, 02:27 AM

15. There will always be discussions surrounding the Second Amendment

I am glad the conversations are taking place. It's a slippery slope that requires opinions from all. Without a doubt there is no easy answer to be found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread