View Poll Results: Does the original intent still matter when discussing the Constitution?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. We should strictly follow both the letter and spirit of the original intent.

    28 35.90%
  • Yes. We should follow the original principles and then apply them as new issues arise.

    21 26.92%
  • Yes. The original intent of the Constition is important, but other factors must be considered.

    15 19.23%
  • No. The Constitution is a guiding set of principles that we can interrpret to fit our current needs.

    10 12.82%
  • Other

    4 5.13%
Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 291

Thread: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

  1. #191
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Right, but the destructive capability the average soldier carries around is continually increasing. Think out into the future. It will continue to increase. Is there any point along that path where you would say "ok, that's too much destructive force for an individual to have"? Or would you continue to support the principal that civilians ought to have unrestricted access to that weaponry even once it becomes far, far, more deadly than it is now?
    We've already been here, and you've seen my response.

    As for the job of the militia, what is that job?
    Constitutionally?
    To repel invasion
    To quash insurrection
    To enforce the laws of the state/Republic
    To assist/resist the standing army in all of the above, as necessary.

    If the job is to have the capability to overthrow the government, as the framers intended, I'm afraid that ship already sailed. The real power of the military is no longer soldiers and the weapons they carry, it's the 'ordinance' as we've been calling it- bombers, cruise missles, aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, satellite imagry, etc.
    Hmm.
    How then did we lose the war in Iraq, and are about to do so in Afghanistan?

    And, what does this have to do with the idea that all firearms are considered 'arms'?

  2. #192
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    We've already been here, and you've seen my response.
    Not really. You've said that you think the principal is the most important thing. Am I correct then that you are saying that you would defend the right for individual citizens to buy these imaginary phasers if they were also issued to soldiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    How then did we lose the war in Iraq, and are about to do so in Afghanistan?
    Forming an insurgency is different than overthrowing a government. Even in Iraq the insurgents, who are radically more well armed and who have way more ordinance than we have here, haven't been able to overthrow the government... And one would imagine that were the US government threatened they would throw far more resources into defending themselves than they throw into defending the Iraqi government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    And, what does this have to do with the idea that all firearms are considered 'arms'?
    I mean, that's the principal we're discussing. That's your position that anything you consider a firearm should be protected, and you defined firearm as whatever a soldier carries. Right? Or am I misunderstanding?

  3. #193
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I mean, that's the principal we're discussing. That's your position that anything you consider a firearm should be protected, and you defined firearm as whatever a soldier carries. Right? Or am I misunderstanding?
    What I said was:
    In short -- it covers all firearms. Anything beyond that is up for debate, but it inarguably covers all firearms.

  4. #194
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    What I said was:
    In short -- it covers all firearms. Anything beyond that is up for debate, but it inarguably covers all firearms.
    That doesn't really respond to my argument. If soldiers start carrying firearms that are capable of inflicting massive destruction in a few seconds, would you support expanding the types of weaponry the civilians can have to match? No matter how destructive those weapons become over time? Or would there be some limit for you?

  5. #195
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    If soldiers start carrying firearms that are capable of inflicting massive destruction in a few seconds, would you support expanding the types of weaponry the civilians can have to match? No matter how destructive those weapons become over time? Or would there be some limit for you?
    You're making this far more difficult than it needs to be.

    Whatever else it may cover, it covers firearms. You know -- guns.

    Given this is what REALLY matters, as firearms -- and not nukes or photon torpedoes or the Death Star -- are at the center of political debate, they are all that need be considered.

  6. #196
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You're making this far more difficult than it needs to be.

    Whatever else it may cover, it covers firearms. You know -- guns.

    Given this is what REALLY matters, as firearms -- and not nukes or photon torpedoes or the Death Star -- are at the center of political debate, they are all that need be considered.
    You're evading my question... As guns get more and more destructive, would you still support civilians having them no matter how powerful they get in the future?

  7. #197
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    You're evading my question... As guns get more and more destructive, would you still support civilians having them no matter how powerful they get in the future?
    No, I have asnwered that question:

    Is this weapon part of 'ordinary military equipment' and 'in common use at the time'? Can the militia use this weapon when doing what the militia is supposed to do? If so, then how do you expect the militia to be able to do its job, if the people do not have access to a similar weapons?

    The implied answer here is: Yes.

    Now, again:
    And, what does this have to do with the idea that all firearms are considered 'arms'?

  8. #198
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I don't like tying the standard to what soldiers carry because that basically means that the bar will rise steadily over time as to how much destructive force we allow civilians to have. In the framers' day one lunatic with a musket who decided to start killing people in an elementary school would get one potentially not even lethal shot off before he'd be tackled and disarmed. Today a lunatic with a machine gun could easily kill 100 people before they get taken down. A modern AK is more deadly than the cannon was in the framers' day. 100 years from now I imagine that soldiers will be carrying weapons that will make the AK look quaint. If soldiers start carrying some kind of phaser that would allow them to melt down a stadium in 30 seconds, that doesn't mean we would want every nut on the street carrying those too. As the destructive force becomes greater, so do the tradeoffs of the right to bear arms, so we shouldn't set a standard that will keep allowing more and more destructive weapons with no limit.

    That said, I'm not really sure what other options there are for a reasonable limit that would stand the test fo time, so I'm not really sure where I stand on gun control. I'm definitely not anti-gun. I had guns growing up, I used to hunt, etc. But I'm also definitely not cool with any random psychopath having the capability to slaughter dozens of people with a single flick of his finger either...
    Please list all the people you know who want psycopath lunatics to be armed to shoot up elementary schools.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #199
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Is this weapon part of 'ordinary military equipment' and 'in common use at the time'? Can the militia use this weapon when doing what the militia is supposed to do? If so, then how do you expect the militia to be able to do its job, if the people do not have access to a similar weapons?

    The implied answer here is: Yes.
    Ok. Then I'm definitely not on board with your standard for the kinds of weapons that should be allowed. No way is the goal of a citizenry capable of forming an insurgency worth the unlimited downside that comes with having no limit on the destructive force they're allowed to command.

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Please list all the people you know who want psycopath lunatics to be armed to shoot up elementary schools.
    How do you mean? We live in a country of 300 million and a world of 7 billion... Al Qaeda certainly comes to mind. The FBI has successfully prosecuted white supremacist groups in 75 separate incidents for conspiracy to commit terrorism in the years since the Oklahoma City bombing. Manson, Dahmer, etc, certainly aren't above that kind of thing. How many end of the world cults have there been. Not to mention, Columbine of course...

  10. #200
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    You're evading my question... As guns get more and more destructive, would you still support civilians having them no matter how powerful they get in the future?
    Why should the military have them?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •