Second Amendment Theory/Absolute Interpretation

[Flyboy]

Ditto is getting close to where I was hoping to go with this, in particular the part about amendments changing with the political wind.

That's exactly why I want to see the Constitution taken literally, and any variation to go through the amendment process. The Constitution is much more resistant to change than simple legislation.

We all agree that current laws infringe upon our rights. If we accept such infringement as legitimate, then we have an ever-shifting line of how much "infringement" is permissible.

If we do not allow any infringement, we're in a much stronger position to beat back an attempt.

If there's political will to repeal the Second Amendment, it'll happen with or without a literal interpretation. Holding to a literal interpretation doesn't create that possibility; it does however secure against encroachment, at least until such time as an unbeatable political supermajority is formed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ditto is getting close to where I was hoping to go with this, in particular the part about amendments changing with the political wind.

That's exactly why I want to see the Constitution taken literally, and any variation to go through the amendment process. The Constitution is much more resistant to change than simple legislation.

We all agree that current laws infringe upon our rights. If we accept such infringement as legitimate, then we have an ever-shifting line of how much "infringement" is permissible.

If we do not allow any infringement, we're in a much stronger position to beat back an attempt.

If there's political will to repeal the Second Amendment, it'll happen with or without a literal interpretation. Holding to a literal interpretation doesn't create that possibility; it does however secure against encroachment, at least until such time as an unbeatable political supermajority is formed.

Encore! Encore!

Woody

 

[TEDDY]

bill of rights

as I all ways understood the B of R the first ten were inalienable rights.not able to be repealed or tampered with.
until the 1960s there were few gun laws and those were intended to prohibit blacks and unfavored political persons from protecting themselves.only since the socialists have made inroads to politics has there been such confusion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Second Amendment provides that the government shall not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms. As understood by the Founders, the term "infringe", as it relates to rights, means "to encroach on or upon". This means to invade gradually. Thus, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with this right, no matter how minimally; no matter how subtly....

That's not the way courts will be applying the Second Amendment, based on existing principles of Constitutional law, and basically, the courts don't care what you think. Enjoy your "dorm room" bill sessions and your alternate universe, but they have nothing to do with what's going to be happening out in the real world.

...That's exactly why I want to see the Constitution taken literally,...

The courts will continue to apply the Constitution in accordance with established principles of Constitution law, with which I doubt that you are familiar of that you understand. Nonetheless, that will be the bases of for future application of the Second Amendment by the courts, and they must be understood so that they may be used by skillful lawyers on our side to attempt to lead the courts toward decisions as favorable as possible in our interests. That is real life.

Your particular literal interpretation of the Constitution exists only in your alternate universe -- not in the real world. The real world will continue to move on its own way without regard to your views here.

...If we do not allow any infringement, we're in a much stronger position to beat back an attempt....

An how do you propose to prevent the courts from going about their business in their ways. If you wish to fight in the courts, which we really must, we must do it on the bases of established legal principles, because they simply will not pay attention to argument not supported by past decisions and established principles. Doing things this way is how we got Heller.

If there's political will to repeal the Second Amendment, it'll happen with or without a literal interpretation....

Indeed, but primarily because no one is going to be paying any real attention to your literal interpretation.

 

[yokel]

Come off it, fiddletown, and please save the reproof.

We're all well aware that this is merely an online discussion site and our personal views expressed here have no bearing whatsoever beyond cyberspace.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...this is merely an online discussion site...

That's true, and I'm going to express my opinion if I'm so inclined.

...our personal views expressed here have no bearing whatsoever beyond cyberspace.

Very true.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We're all well aware that this is merely an online discussion site and our personal views expressed here have no bearing whatsoever beyond cyberspace.

Ah, but our chat is read by far more people than post here. We're doing more good than you might imagine.

Keep up the good work! That goes for everyone.

Woody