• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Constitution: Does Original Intent Still Matter?

Does the original intent still matter when discussing the Constitution?


  • Total voters
    60
That would incorrectly imply some democratic or libertarian quality of the Constitution itself, though, when it contains numerous elements directly contrary to the maximization of such qualities.
 
Yeah that's true. The second amendment is broader with a strict constructionist reading than with somebody that looks at the intent. Even for those that look at the intent it's unclear what that means. Some people argue that their intent was just for militias, which some people argue are now the national guard. Other people argue that the intent was to enable the citizens to have enough military might that they can overthrow the government. But if we really go with a policy of no infringement whatsoever, or the goal of enabling citizens to overthrow the government, in the modern world that leads to some insanity... Like, nobody would argue that just anybody should be able to get a nuclear bomb without a permit, waiting period, background check, trigger locking requirements or registration... But that's technically what 'no infringement' would mean... So I'm not really sure what to do with that one. I don't have a clear legal idea of how best to interpret the limits of that one. If you have a read that makes sense, but doesn't mean we need to let terrorists be able to pick up surface to air missles at the 7-11, I'd definitely be interested.

Personally, I see a common sense distinction between "arms" and "ordnance." The former being typical firearms and the latter being those weapons specifically military in nature such as artillery or modern bombs--yes including nukes. Under scrutiny of original intent, I don't know of any civilians in the late 1700s or early 1800s who sprung for cannon.
 
That would incorrectly imply some democratic or libertarian quality of the Constitution itself, though, when it contains numerous elements directly contrary to the maximization of such qualities.

The intent was not the maximization of such qualities, but to allow for what they determined was the proper amount of limited authority on the government. The maximization of such qualities creates an ineffective government.

Prior to the constitution the articles of confederation more closely set out to maximaze libertarian ideals--so much so that the federal government was determined to be completely ineffective and they had to be scrapped.

The purpose of the constitution is to clearly define a limited set of powers allowed of the federal government--excluding all else to the states or the people, not to maximize any ideal notions.
 
Last edited:
The intent was not the maximization of such qualities, but to allow for what they determined was the proper amount of limited authority on the government. The maximization of such qualities creates an ineffective government.

Prior to the constitution the articles of confederation more closely set out to maximaze libertarian ideals--so much so that the federal government was determined to be completely ineffective and they had to be scrapped.

The purpose of the constitution is to clearly define a limited set of powers allowed of the federal government--excluding all else to the states or the people.

I'm not interested in "effective" qualities if their effect is the reinforcement of limited democratic management through republicanism and checks on freedom through authoritarian mechanisms. I promote anarchism myself, as is well known, but the Constitution fails to meet even the criteria of most other Western liberal democracies.
 
I'm not interested in "effective" qualities if their effect is the reinforcement of limited democratic management through republicanism and checks on freedom through authoritarian mechanisms. I promote anarchism myself, as is well known, but the Constitution fails to meet even the criteria of most other Western liberal democracies.
What criteria, as though that matters?
 
I'm not interested in "effective" qualities if their effect is the reinforcement of limited democratic management through republicanism and checks on freedom through authoritarian mechanisms.

That's what government does. It is necessary--the constitution keeps the process limited. I know you disagree because you are a socialist/anarchist... personally, I see more room for exploitation of people under authoritarian mechanisms within socialist systems.
Any usurpation of private property is a usurpation of freedom.

I promote anarchism myself, as is well known, but the Constitution fails to meet even the criteria of most other Western liberal democracies.

what criteria? You speak as if there is (or was) some form of worldwide agreement about what it "means" to be a western liberal democracy... I don't see any value in that approach at all, there's no such overarching agreement or criteria, especially prexisting the US constitution.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I see a common sense distinction between "arms" and "ordnance." The former being typical firearms and the latter being those weapons specifically military in nature such as artillery or modern bombs--yes including nukes. Under scrutiny of original intent, I don't know of any civilians in the late 1700s or early 1800s who sprung for cannon.

That makes sense to me, but what's the definition of what is ordinance and what is arms. Certainly I can see that a nuke would be ordinance and a hunting rifle arms, but it seems like where that line falls is what a lot of the debate is about. For example, what about an automatic ak47?
 
The constitution should be made to work in a changing world to my mind. Think of it as a rough framework that we use as a guide.

The constitution is fine as it is... the Constitution puts limits on Government, not the people --- therefore those limits to Government still apply. Once they start applying to "people", it's no longer a Constitution.
 
That makes sense to me, but what's the definition of what is ordinance and what is arms. Certainly I can see that a nuke would be ordinance and a hunting rifle arms, but it seems like where that line falls is what a lot of the debate is about. For example, what about an automatic ak47?

AKs = arms

In my opinion, with regard to the orginal intent to which the amendment was written, "arms" are weapons that would be furnished by individuals that show up to fight in a militia, so they are those weapons/ammo that are needed to make oneself an effective infantryman. For instance, in the late 1700s, if the militia was called up, people could reasonably be expected to bring their own individually owned muskets, pistols, etc---they would not be expected to bring their own cannon or mortars because as "ordnance," they would have been furnished by the state.
 
That makes sense to me, but what's the definition of what is ordinance and what is arms. Certainly I can see that a nuke would be ordinance and a hunting rifle arms, but it seems like where that line falls is what a lot of the debate is about. For example, what about an automatic ak47?
"Arms" has been interpreted by the SCotUS as any weapon that is 'oridinary military equipment', 'in common use at the time', and, in its use, has some 'reasonable relationship' to the role of the militia.

In short -- it covers all firearms. Anything beyond that is up for debate, but it inarguably covers all firearms.
 
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...
 
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.
That's the point.
You cannot have an effective militia if the people do not have suitable, effective weapons.

In the framers' day...
These arguments are meaningless, unless you want to aslo consider what else they could not have imagined -- satellite television, the internet, the telephone -- and how your argument applies to them.

That said, I'm not really sure what other options there are for a reasonable limit that would stand the test fo time
There is none. The concept and the principle, not the technology is what matters.
 
There is none. The concept and the principle, not the technology is what matters.

I disagree with that. If you believe that, work through my scenario with the phaser. Imagine that in 50 years soldiers are issued some new high tech phaser that can destroy an entire stadium and kill everybody inside in a matter of seconds. Would you support those phasers being sold to whoever wanted them? The country wouldn't last a month after that. Every year there are thousands of murder suicides. If even 10% of those decided to take a whole stadium of people down with them, our country would be in ashes. Massive scale terrorism would be child's play to carry out. If China wanted to go to war with us, instead of needing a trillion dollar military, they'd need 100 folks with valid drivers licenses or state IDs... Nobody wants those things, right?

A principal that doesn't take into account that sort of scenario isn't a good principal. I'm looking for a principal that both meets the goal of allowing hunting and self defense and whatnot, but also gives us a reasonable answer to the phaser question.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with that. If you believe that, work through my scenario with the phaser. Imagine that in 50 years soldiers are issued some new high tech phaser that can destroy an entire stadium and kill everybody inside in a matter of seconds.
We have those weapons now -- they're called tactical nuclear weapons.

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 militis 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.

And, what does this have to do with the idea that all firearms are considered 'arms'?
 
We have those weapons now -- they're called tactical nuclear weapons.

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 militis 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.

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

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?

As for the job of the militia, what is that job? 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.
 
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'?
 
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?

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.

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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'?
 
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.
 
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.

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...
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom