The better argument, of course, is that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment put forward by the NRA et al is historically novel and assumes that the founders put in the clause about the well-regulated militia as a “by the by, just so’s you know” kinda thing.
If you take the argument as shallow as possible sure. But the more rigorous argument is: the enormous and egregious blind spots of the people who created our founding documents should encourage us to revise and reinterpret their work as our knowledge changes/grows.
-
-
-
I think the argument that most people make, myself included, is that the militia bit means keeping the citizenry armed so they can form a militia. If you'll recall, it was a citizen militia primarily that won the Revolution. The two things are related, but not dependent.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, believe it or not, there is a process for changing the document. But the fact that the Amendment is "old" makes no argument as to it's value or morality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The 2nd amendment and the 3/5 compromise are completely different kinds of "laws". Compromise had to do with the political and social climate of the specific time it was written. 2nd was written based upon acquired knowledge and wisdom of general human nature over time.
-
Eh, yes I understand the distinction you’re making, but the assumption is that humans are not perfect thinking machines and that our nominally “universal” thinking is nevertheless affected by our history and culture.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.