Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The 2nd Amendment crystal clear or as clear as muddy water?
There may not be a more confusing amendment in our constitution, yet most people "know" exactly what it means.
Also, I am fearful if you asked the average person on the street to quote the 2A, there answer is "we have the right to own guns" leaving out the beginning and end, that is after you remind them (some) 2A is about guns.
Furthermore, if you read the entire amendment to them they will look puzzled not knowing how to interpret the first part.
But remember, people "KNOW" what it means.
Even the nine people who decide what the constitution means are divided on the subject.
I may be in the minority with this opinion but most of the rhetoric I hear from the two side of the issue I think goes too far to the right and left.
A friend sarcastically said it this way, "The left winged gun control nuts want to make all guns illegal including sling shots while the right wing gun nuts want us to be able to own and carry any weapon including 500lb nuclear weapons".
OK a bit over the top but he and I feel we do have the right to own and carry some guns in some places in some circumstances but some guns, places, and circumstances should be illegal.
This seems to be a moderate position which I don't hear often, especially by politicians who seem to have to be in one camp or the other or they will be attacked by both sides and certainly lose.
Is my position really that rare or do we just not know how to get noticed?
Or, does the average citizen really not give a care?
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 02:31 AM - Edit history (1)
based on my own understanding of the English language and history. Also worth mentioning that, by your own interpretation of the 2A, it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law forbidding me from owning or carrying arms within the boundaries of MD law. 
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
I post the 2nd Amendment (here it is again------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.) and that's not a fact?? We all have a right to bear arms, but there is a personal responsibility involved that precludes you to not go shootin' up the town willy nilly, or be packin' when your drunk, or being a convicted felon, etc. There are reams of court cases proving this.....you look it up if your fascinated. This thread is over.
...as long as there is a fire.
You have a right to do things........you have a responsibility to do things right
Oh, right, the big teeth...
In 1789 there wasn't a big difference between hunting, self defense and military weapons and while I won't disagree the 2A is a military clause, with the regular armed force and national guards being armed and either on duty or ready to be called to duty we no longer have a "civilian" militia, except for maybe the ones preparing to take up arms against the U.S.
You are correct that in the 18th century military and civilian weapons were basically the same technology. This does not change the fact that the second amendment is a military clause, with the intent of keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of the people, which would allow them to serve in militias when necessary.
The reason why the founders continued the decentralized military system of the state militias was because they did not trust a unified central military. They said that "standing armies are dangerous to liberty". They feared that a central military would be used to oppress the people. Consequently, they perpetuated the state militia system whereby each state had its own military made up of the people of their respective states and led by officers from those same states.
This system was dismantled in 1903 with the passage of The Dick Act. The Dick Act federalized the state militias, creating the Organized Militia (the National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia.
When this happened, the state militias no longer served as a counter to federal military power, they became adjuncts to it - in essence they became reserve federal troops.
So the militias of the founders' day no longer exist. This does not invalidate the second amendment. In fact, it is likely that the founders anticipated this corruption or elimination of the militias and this is why the second amendment specifically enumerates the right to keep and bear arms to the people and not to the states, nor the militias, both also mentioned in the amendment.
I referred to the internet just as examples of how there are diverse opinions.
But you seemed to be implying that all of these diverse opinions were equally valid. They aren't.
That said, I referred to the polls to emphasize that although the majority of Americans feel we should be able to own/carry guns that stops at some point. The fact that many don't understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic doesn't change the intent of the people as you have implied they are thinking fully automatic. Quite frankly if everyone did know the difference and the polls said fully automatic the % may go up greatly, but down for semi-auto.
Yes, but it highlights the problem with ignorant people responding to polls. And this ignorance is being used by anti-gun folks. Here is the VPC:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm
"Assault weapons just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
I'm skeptical of such polls because of the way they are undoubtedly worded. If you told such poll respondents that grandpa's deer rifle was also semi-automatic the poll numbers would plummet. If you told them that semi-automatic firearm technology is over 100 years old I bet the poll numbers would plummet.
When you show them a picture of this semi-automatic rifle they think one thing:
Yet when you show them a picture of this semi-automatic rifle they think something else:
Even though these weapons are functionally identical and fire the same ammunition in exactly the same way.
I live in Birmingham so I am familiar with the Amy Bishop case and I understand rules/laws don't stop all crime, but I am not sure if allowing guns on the UAH campus would have made any difference.
Of course not - no one can say whether or not it would have made any difference. But we know for sure that no one could stop Amy Bishop as the situation stands today. The only thing that stopped Amy Bishop was Amy Bishop. Everyone else had no choice but to hide or run until the police showed up.
However, I have worked for a post secondary school for 8 years and I can tell you some of the students I would trust with a gun, others I would not. I am sure you are a responsible gun owner, know the safety rules, and from time to time go somewhere to safely practice so that if you ever do need to defend yourself or others you will do so correctly. My concern are those who buy a gun, not knowing the first safety rule of the gun, have shot it only once using less than one box of ammo then thinking they are the Lone Ranger who is going to save the day.
Here's the thing: You have no control over that. In Alabama, if a person is 21 years old and passes the background check, they can get a concealed carry permit.
Now I don't think Alabama publishes the data, but many states do, and the data is pretty clear: People with concealed carry permits not only are hardly ever involved in firearm crime, but they are hardly ever involved in crime in general. In fact, they are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than any other random citizen you are going to encounter.
And it still doesn't change what I said earlier: If a person with a CCW permit can walk down main street with a firearm surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens, there is no reason why a person can't do it on a college campus. I'm not going to change into an ogre just because I've left work to go to night school.
I guess on your private property go for it. And as to training classes, they shouldn't be a joke, nor the test. But, like I said before my concern are those who don't know how to safely carry and use a gun.
They are a joke to anyone with a lick of common sense. I have had firearm safety drilled into me since I was 8 so the test to me was like falling off a log. And you won't see very restrictive tests because then you get into the same kind of situation as when you require literacy tests for voting - a punitive test that denies a Constitutional right.
Yes the original intent may have been to replace or counter a federal standing army. If you are talking about a foreign country attacking the U.S. that is what the Armed Forces and National Guard was designed to do. I hope you were not taking about standing against our government, but if our country failed as we know it and it came to that then we most likely would need artillery, and planes also because if circumstances degraded to the point that our military was attacking our citizens then they would be using any and every weapon to there disposal.
Yes, the original intent was to replace or counter a federal standing army. And that intent is as valid today as it was when it was written. To think otherwise is to assume that the United States has achieve the pinnacle of representative government and will forevermore be beholden to the interests of the people. Frankly over the last decade I think our government has become highly oppressive and is moving ever-closer towards tyranny, with the suspension of habeus corpus, pervasive domestic surveillance, extraordinary rendition, executive summary execution of American citizens, indefinite detention of anyone deemed to be an "enemy combatant", torture, and more.
If you ask me, we are moving further from freedom, not closer to it.
As for the effectiveness of civilians in a civil war, again, one can never be sure, but I think the efforts of the people fighting against us in Afghanistan and Iraq for the last decade show how a war of attrition can be won. And this is happening on foreign soil. Civil wars on the home ground are economically devastating, which erodes tax income.
As to the number of rounds. I really don't have a magic number. I am sure somewhere someone ran out of ammo while defending themselves, but I would guess that is extremely rare. But, I would say anything over 20 if I have to pick a number.
You may be interested to know that police have a hit-rate of something like less than 30%, as I recall. This means a handgun that holds 15 rounds might hit 5 times.
I think the capacity issue is a bit of a red herring. While there have been instances where a shooter has been taken down while reloading (Loughner), most of the time the shooters can reload quickly and easily. You'll notice Cho did not have any high-capacity magazines.
As cases are brought before the Supreme Court, no matter the subject, often there is a debate whether the Constitution is a "living or static" document. Should we take the intent of the signers and apply it to today's situations or use the 1789 standard. Thus far the Supreme Court has done both or better said some of the justices use one and some use the other and occasionally they flip-flop. But either way here is some "food for thought". It could be argued that since we no longer have militias as we knew them in 1789 then the military purpose of the 2A no longer applies and if the purpose to keep and bear arms was military the 2A no longer applies at all. It could also be argued that the signers had no concept of how weapons would progress, that they were thinking nothing beyond what they had that day so the right stops with the technology of 1789. Like wise it could be argued that since today infantry has shoulder launched rockets and mortars they should be in the average citizens hands. My point is even if you are 100% right as to what the 2A means and the founding fathers intents were exactly as you say that doesn't necessarily mean that is how the Supreme Court will interpret the 2A in the future nor how the American People interpret it.
Human nature has remained largely unchanged for all of recorded history. This is why documents like the Constitution maintain their relevance despite changes in technology. It is not about the details of execution, but rather about the fundamental, underlying principles.
We don't care how free speech is executed, whether by the quill and printing press or by a computer and email. We cherish the freedom of speech because it protects the fundamental underlying principle that everyone should be free to speak their minds, particularly about and against the government.
We don't care what kind of searches technology might enable, such wire tapping or email hacking or remote body scanning, we cherish the ability to be free of unreasonable searches without probable cause.
Likewise we don't care what weapons technology might bring, so long as the people have the same technology that modern infantry possess so that the people can always have a fighting chance at resisting oppression.
Note that the second amendment is generally not held by anyone, even advocates, to cover crew-served weaponry such as mortars, rockets, cannons, tanks, etc. And likewise it is not generally held to cover indiscriminate weaponry such as explosives. One could argue that these fall under "arms" appropriate for use in a militia but I do not.
You are correct that in the 18th century military and civilian weapons were basically the same technology. This does not change the fact that the second amendment is a military clause, with the intent of keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of the people, which would allow them to serve in militias when necessary.
The reason why the founders continued the decentralized military system of the state militias was because they did not trust a unified central military. They said that "standing armies are dangerous to liberty". They feared that a central military would be used to oppress the people. Consequently, they perpetuated the state militia system whereby each state had its own military made up of the people of their respective states and led by officers from those same states.
This system was dismantled in 1903 with the passage of The Dick Act. The Dick Act federalized the state militias, creating the Organized Militia (the National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia.
When this happened, the state militias no longer served as a counter to federal military power, they became adjuncts to it - in essence they became reserve federal troops.
So the militias of the founders' day no longer exist. This does not invalidate the second amendment. In fact, it is likely that the founders anticipated this corruption or elimination of the militias and this is why the second amendment specifically enumerates the right to keep and bear arms to the people and not to the states, nor the militias, both also mentioned in the amendment.
I referred to the internet just as examples of how there are diverse opinions.
But you seemed to be implying that all of these diverse opinions were equally valid. They aren't.
That said, I referred to the polls to emphasize that although the majority of Americans feel we should be able to own/carry guns that stops at some point. The fact that many don't understand the difference between fully automatic and semi automatic doesn't change the intent of the people as you have implied they are thinking fully automatic. Quite frankly if everyone did know the difference and the polls said fully automatic the % may go up greatly, but down for semi-auto.
Yes, but it highlights the problem with ignorant people responding to polls. And this ignorance is being used by anti-gun folks. Here is the VPC:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm
"Assault weapons just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
I'm skeptical of such polls because of the way they are undoubtedly worded. If you told such poll respondents that grandpa's deer rifle was also semi-automatic the poll numbers would plummet. If you told them that semi-automatic firearm technology is over 100 years old I bet the poll numbers would plummet.
When you show them a picture of this semi-automatic rifle they think one thing:
Yet when you show them a picture of this semi-automatic rifle they think something else:
Even though these weapons are functionally identical and fire the same ammunition in exactly the same way.
I live in Birmingham so I am familiar with the Amy Bishop case and I understand rules/laws don't stop all crime, but I am not sure if allowing guns on the UAH campus would have made any difference.
Of course not - no one can say whether or not it would have made any difference. But we know for sure that no one could stop Amy Bishop as the situation stands today. The only thing that stopped Amy Bishop was Amy Bishop. Everyone else had no choice but to hide or run until the police showed up.
However, I have worked for a post secondary school for 8 years and I can tell you some of the students I would trust with a gun, others I would not. I am sure you are a responsible gun owner, know the safety rules, and from time to time go somewhere to safely practice so that if you ever do need to defend yourself or others you will do so correctly. My concern are those who buy a gun, not knowing the first safety rule of the gun, have shot it only once using less than one box of ammo then thinking they are the Lone Ranger who is going to save the day.
Here's the thing: You have no control over that. In Alabama, if a person is 21 years old and passes the background check, they can get a concealed carry permit.
Now I don't think Alabama publishes the data, but many states do, and the data is pretty clear: People with concealed carry permits not only are hardly ever involved in firearm crime, but they are hardly ever involved in crime in general. In fact, they are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than any other random citizen you are going to encounter.
And it still doesn't change what I said earlier: If a person with a CCW permit can walk down main street with a firearm surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens, there is no reason why a person can't do it on a college campus. I'm not going to change into an ogre just because I've left work to go to night school.
I guess on your private property go for it. And as to training classes, they shouldn't be a joke, nor the test. But, like I said before my concern are those who don't know how to safely carry and use a gun.
They are a joke to anyone with a lick of common sense. I have had firearm safety drilled into me since I was 8 so the test to me was like falling off a log. And you won't see very restrictive tests because then you get into the same kind of situation as when you require literacy tests for voting - a punitive test that denies a Constitutional right.
Yes the original intent may have been to replace or counter a federal standing army. If you are talking about a foreign country attacking the U.S. that is what the Armed Forces and National Guard was designed to do. I hope you were not taking about standing against our government, but if our country failed as we know it and it came to that then we most likely would need artillery, and planes also because if circumstances degraded to the point that our military was attacking our citizens then they would be using any and every weapon to there disposal.
Yes, the original intent was to replace or counter a federal standing army. And that intent is as valid today as it was when it was written. To think otherwise is to assume that the United States has achieve the pinnacle of representative government and will forevermore be beholden to the interests of the people. Frankly over the last decade I think our government has become highly oppressive and is moving ever-closer towards tyranny, with the suspension of habeus corpus, pervasive domestic surveillance, extraordinary rendition, executive summary execution of American citizens, indefinite detention of anyone deemed to be an "enemy combatant", torture, and more.
If you ask me, we are moving further from freedom, not closer to it.
As for the effectiveness of civilians in a civil war, again, one can never be sure, but I think the efforts of the people fighting against us in Afghanistan and Iraq for the last decade show how a war of attrition can be won. And this is happening on foreign soil. Civil wars on the home ground are economically devastating, which erodes tax income.
As to the number of rounds. I really don't have a magic number. I am sure somewhere someone ran out of ammo while defending themselves, but I would guess that is extremely rare. But, I would say anything over 20 if I have to pick a number.
You may be interested to know that police have a hit-rate of something like less than 30%, as I recall. This means a handgun that holds 15 rounds might hit 5 times.
I think the capacity issue is a bit of a red herring. While there have been instances where a shooter has been taken down while reloading (Loughner), most of the time the shooters can reload quickly and easily. You'll notice Cho did not have any high-capacity magazines.
As cases are brought before the Supreme Court, no matter the subject, often there is a debate whether the Constitution is a "living or static" document. Should we take the intent of the signers and apply it to today's situations or use the 1789 standard. Thus far the Supreme Court has done both or better said some of the justices use one and some use the other and occasionally they flip-flop. But either way here is some "food for thought". It could be argued that since we no longer have militias as we knew them in 1789 then the military purpose of the 2A no longer applies and if the purpose to keep and bear arms was military the 2A no longer applies at all. It could also be argued that the signers had no concept of how weapons would progress, that they were thinking nothing beyond what they had that day so the right stops with the technology of 1789. Like wise it could be argued that since today infantry has shoulder launched rockets and mortars they should be in the average citizens hands. My point is even if you are 100% right as to what the 2A means and the founding fathers intents were exactly as you say that doesn't necessarily mean that is how the Supreme Court will interpret the 2A in the future nor how the American People interpret it.
Human nature has remained largely unchanged for all of recorded history. This is why documents like the Constitution maintain their relevance despite changes in technology. It is not about the details of execution, but rather about the fundamental, underlying principles.
We don't care how free speech is executed, whether by the quill and printing press or by a computer and email. We cherish the freedom of speech because it protects the fundamental underlying principle that everyone should be free to speak their minds, particularly about and against the government.
We don't care what kind of searches technology might enable, such wire tapping or email hacking or remote body scanning, we cherish the ability to be free of unreasonable searches without probable cause.
Likewise we don't care what weapons technology might bring, so long as the people have the same technology that modern infantry possess so that the people can always have a fighting chance at resisting oppression.
Note that the second amendment is generally not held by anyone, even advocates, to cover crew-served weaponry such as mortars, rockets, cannons, tanks, etc. And likewise it is not generally held to cover indiscriminate weaponry such as explosives. One could argue that these fall under "arms" appropriate for use in a militia but I do not.
2A says keep and bear arms, this is not specific, and applied to weapons of 1789. We really do not have any way of knowing if the signers would have wanted this to continue to expand or placed limits if they knew how technology would proceed.
If we follow this logic than we must also say that computers and email do not constitute free speech, and that you are not secure from unreasonable searches in your automobile.
Clearly this is not the case.
Again, we can't focus on the details of the execution, but rather on the fundamental underlying principles being protected.
The second amendment was about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of the people so that they could eliminate the need for or at least counter federal military power.
The circumstances of history and current times in 1789 must have given the signers the reason for having a well regulated militia. We do not know how they would feel 223 years later whether they would still feel we need the well regulated militia or not.
I believe they would want it now more than ever. The entire government, not just the military, was an exercise in decentralizing power, so that power could not concentrate and be used to oppress. They knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To this end they created a government with three branches - the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, in an attempt to create a system with checks and balances that would prevent any one branch from having all the power.
This same concept was applied to the military.
The purpose was simple: By keeping the army broken into state units, they figured no one state would (or could) engage in oppression against another. And, in order to engage in foreign wars, it would require the concerted agreement and participation of the states in concert.
Imagine how many foreign entanglements we might have avoided over the last 50 years if all the states had to use their militias to act on them!
I agree all opinions on the internet may not be "valid", if valid is factually correct. But, to say all opinions but yours are not valid, could be considered closed minded.
This is true, but I am rather convinced that I am correct on this subject, having studied it carefully for many, many years.
Also let us not forget that the militia angle is now mute. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right regardless of membership in any militia.
I understand you want a gun on your body 24/7-365.
No, actually I don't carry, though I have recently filled out the paperwork to get a permit. I just want people to have the option to carry if they choose and are legally allowed.
If trained police officers have only a 30% hit average makes the self defense argument even less valid. Just my opinion.
Except CCW permit holders tend to cause less collateral damage in shootings than the police tend to. But even so, the police still carry firearms even with their 30% hit rate since that 30% chance is better than 0%.
I know my argument about shoulder launched rockets and mortars was a little over the top but, if we are to defend against our or any real army wouldn't we need those also?
My feeling is that with the arms currently available it should be sufficient to acquire the rest should it prove necessary.
Until you spoke of eroding freedoms I started to question if you were liberal at all. You actually, at least on the 2A subject, could make some hardcore conservatives look rather moderate if not liberal. Also, to look at your previous posts it appears most (or at least the ones I looked at) are only on the subject of 2A. I was starting to wonder if you were on DU just to take jabs at the liberals who don't appreciate or agree with you on the gun issue.
Hence "Atypical" Liberal
Also, if you are "atypical liberal" I would welcome you to share to me or DU some other issues which you are passionate about. I would find it interesting if we agree on anything or even everything except 2A.
I'm sure we agree on many things. I am pro-choice. I am pro-gay-rights, including pro-gay-marriage. I support affirmative action. I support unions and collective bargaining. I support and participate in the Occupy movement. I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am against corporate personhood. I am for regulations to protect the environment. I am against the War on Terror and all the erosions of liberty this has brought us. I am against the War on Drugs. I want socialized single-payer health care.
I believe the thing that drives most liberals against the right to keep and bear arms is simple: a distrust of the individual. The progressive movement believes most strongly in collective action and the benevolence of the state as an instrument of the people. Conversely, there is a distrust or even an outright disdain for the individual. This is easily seen on the idea of self-defense. Many liberals believe that self-defense is a collective responsibility, or a responsibility of the state, and that individuals should not have the power to defend themselves. I disagree with this. I also do not trust the state, which is why I am also against the death penalty.
If we follow this logic than we must also say that computers and email do not constitute free speech, and that you are not secure from unreasonable searches in your automobile.
Clearly this is not the case.
Again, we can't focus on the details of the execution, but rather on the fundamental underlying principles being protected.
The second amendment was about keeping military-grade small arms in the hands of the people so that they could eliminate the need for or at least counter federal military power.
The circumstances of history and current times in 1789 must have given the signers the reason for having a well regulated militia. We do not know how they would feel 223 years later whether they would still feel we need the well regulated militia or not.
I believe they would want it now more than ever. The entire government, not just the military, was an exercise in decentralizing power, so that power could not concentrate and be used to oppress. They knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To this end they created a government with three branches - the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, in an attempt to create a system with checks and balances that would prevent any one branch from having all the power.
This same concept was applied to the military.
The purpose was simple: By keeping the army broken into state units, they figured no one state would (or could) engage in oppression against another. And, in order to engage in foreign wars, it would require the concerted agreement and participation of the states in concert.
Imagine how many foreign entanglements we might have avoided over the last 50 years if all the states had to use their militias to act on them!
I agree all opinions on the internet may not be "valid", if valid is factually correct. But, to say all opinions but yours are not valid, could be considered closed minded.
This is true, but I am rather convinced that I am correct on this subject, having studied it carefully for many, many years.
Also let us not forget that the militia angle is now mute. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right regardless of membership in any militia.
I understand you want a gun on your body 24/7-365.
No, actually I don't carry, though I have recently filled out the paperwork to get a permit. I just want people to have the option to carry if they choose and are legally allowed.
If trained police officers have only a 30% hit average makes the self defense argument even less valid. Just my opinion.
Except CCW permit holders tend to cause less collateral damage in shootings than the police tend to. But even so, the police still carry firearms even with their 30% hit rate since that 30% chance is better than 0%.
I know my argument about shoulder launched rockets and mortars was a little over the top but, if we are to defend against our or any real army wouldn't we need those also?
My feeling is that with the arms currently available it should be sufficient to acquire the rest should it prove necessary.
Until you spoke of eroding freedoms I started to question if you were liberal at all. You actually, at least on the 2A subject, could make some hardcore conservatives look rather moderate if not liberal. Also, to look at your previous posts it appears most (or at least the ones I looked at) are only on the subject of 2A. I was starting to wonder if you were on DU just to take jabs at the liberals who don't appreciate or agree with you on the gun issue.
Hence "Atypical" Liberal
Also, if you are "atypical liberal" I would welcome you to share to me or DU some other issues which you are passionate about. I would find it interesting if we agree on anything or even everything except 2A.
I'm sure we agree on many things. I am pro-choice. I am pro-gay-rights, including pro-gay-marriage. I support affirmative action. I support unions and collective bargaining. I support and participate in the Occupy movement. I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am against corporate personhood. I am for regulations to protect the environment. I am against the War on Terror and all the erosions of liberty this has brought us. I am against the War on Drugs. I want socialized single-payer health care.
I believe the thing that drives most liberals against the right to keep and bear arms is simple: a distrust of the individual. The progressive movement believes most strongly in collective action and the benevolence of the state as an instrument of the people. Conversely, there is a distrust or even an outright disdain for the individual. This is easily seen on the idea of self-defense. Many liberals believe that self-defense is a collective responsibility, or a responsibility of the state, and that individuals should not have the power to defend themselves. I disagree with this. I also do not trust the state, which is why I am also against the death penalty.
I must also confess to a bit of comma confusion.
"...they will take one part of the Constitution and use a "static" interpretation saying we must use the same standard as someone in 1789, but on another use a "living" interpretation saying we must use a modern standard."
In my opinion, the BoR and some other amendments protect certain fundamental human rights. Freedom of speech is protected whether you speak sitting on a bench at a bus stop to a neighbor or write a blog read by thousands. There were no bus stops nor blogs in 1789 so, in this regard, the application of the right is living but the essence of the right is preserved as literal. The literal immutable sense of rights needs to be preserved.
Some folks think that all the amendments are simply "changes". I disagree. While they are expressed as changes, they are fundamental. Those who think the 2A is a mistake and can simply the cancelled as the 18A was, should consider how they feel about cancelling the 13A. Sure, if enough people vote that way, but would it be a good thing? IMHO, the only good and valid changes to be made to the BoR would be along the lines of the changes made by the 14A and 19A. As they say, pure Democracy can be two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That's why I believe certain matters should not be subject to the government enforced will of the people.
Another important step is the incorporation of the same protection from tyranny guaranteed by the BoR at the national level to the individual states under the 14th amendment. The 1A begins "Congress shall make no law...". Clearly it is good for the same restriction against congress establishing a preferred religion to be applied at the state and local level. USSC made clear that this incorporation applies also to the RKBA.
For anyone to say they know what the signers would think today is, I think, impossible, we are only guessing.
By signers here I infer you mean the Founders. The many of Founders have written relating to the topics of gun control and the RKBA. I believe that there is a consensus.
