• 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
Why should the military have them?

I don't really think they "should", but in a world where every country competes for military supremacy, they more or less need to in order to compete with other militaries. Certainly, if I could wave a magic wand and suddenly have the winner of every war in the world be determined by who was able to save the most species from extinction or make the prettiest flower garden or something, that'd be the way to go, but I don't think that's on the table ;) Until then, the military is going to continue on it's race to create the most deadly soldier possible.

That doesn't mean we also need to have a race to make the most deadly psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, and drug addicts possible.
 
I don't really think they "should", but in a world where every country competes for military supremacy, they more or less need to in order to compete with other militaries. Certainly, if I could wave a magic wand and suddenly have the winner of every war in the world be determined by who was able to save the most species from extinction or make the prettiest flower garden or something, that'd be the way to go, but I don't think that's on the table ;) Until then, the military is going to continue on it's race to create the most deadly soldier possible.

That doesn't mean we also need to have a race to make the most deadly psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, and drug addicts possible.
This is what liberals think about law abiding citizens.
 
This is what liberals think about law abiding citizens.

What do you mean? Obviously most folks are good law abiding folks. But there are 311 million people in this country. There are psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, drug addicts, nazis, mentally ill people, cults, white supremacists, black supremacists, conspiracy nuts, extortionists, theives, gangs, organized crime, and assasins amongst those 311 million. Whatever law we make for the law abiding folks also determines what kind of weaponry those folks have access to.
 
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. Would you support those phasers being sold to whoever wanted them? .

You are postulating about an imaginary and improbable sci-fi-fantasy weapon that might exist some time in the relatively distant future...or it might not. There is not presently even any theory in physics to account for a handheld "phaser" that had that kind of destructive power... yet you are using this fantasy weapon as an argument against the present established principle of what is "arms".

This is as silly as if I were to argue about restrictions to free speech on the basis of "what if in the future they can give you a pill and you develop mental telepathy, what about free speech then huh? Can't have people going around broadcasting into everyone's brain!!"

This is a red herring, you are basing an argument on a fantasy technology that may never exist.

Let's get back to the real world shall we? And we'll let the far future worry about it's own problems as they actually develop.

teamosil said:
What do you mean? Obviously most folks are good law abiding folks. But there are 311 million people in this country. There are psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, drug addicts, nazis, mentally ill people, cults, white supremacists, black supremacists, conspiracy nuts, extortionists, theives, gangs, organized crime, and assasins amongst those 311 million. Whatever law we make for the law abiding folks also determines what kind of weaponry those folks have access to.

Your premise here is patently flawed; in fact it is flatly false.

The nuts and scumbags outlined in bold print, who commit felonies with weapons, do not typically obtain those weapons legally; do not register them or concern themselves with whether those weapons are legal; in short they do not obey the law.

The part of your quote I underlined is totally fallacious. The restrictions imposed on law-abiding folk most obviously DO NOT APPLY TO OUTLAWS. There are already places in this country where it is almost impossible for lawful citizens to own most sorts of firearms, yet criminals get them anyway.

You might argue that they get them from other states with fewer restrictions. Yes, right now they do. If the entire USA labored under such restrictions as Chicago does, guess what? Weapons would be smuggled in from overseas, constructed in black-market machine shops, and criminals and crazies would still have access to them. AK47's can be built in a small machine shop, so can revolvers... citizens already manufacture their own ammo. Not to mention the estimated 220 million-plus guns already in private hands in the USA...and I believe that number to be low.

We can't keep pot and cocaine out of the country, despite draconian anti-drug laws and a huge DEA anti-smuggling organization... what in the world makes you think we could keep people from smuggling in guns or manufacturing them illegally?

All you'd accomplish would be to disarm law-abiding citizens....IF you didn't trigger an armed revolt instead. It is an ineffective solution because the approach focuses on the tool and not the behavior.

Thinking that gun control prevents crime is like thinking that laws regulating pencils will prevent paperwork errors. What we need is criminal control, not inanimate object control.
 
Last edited:
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.

Since the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure the citizen had parity with the soldier in the employ of a would be tyrant, why shouldn't the standards rise as technology improves?
 
You are postulating about an imaginary and improbable sci-fi-fantasy weapon that might exist some time in the relatively distant future...or it might not. There is not presently even any theory in physics to account for a handheld "phaser" that had that kind of destructive power... yet you are using this fantasy weapon as an argument against the present established principle of what is "arms".

I disagree. If you compare an AK47 to a musket, we've already made that sort of leap once. So, if we're going to apply the logic that was created to deal with muskets to AK47s, my question is, where is the line? Something twice as deadly as an AK? Four times? If the right to bear arms is to be treated as an absolute right, we need to define exactly what the boundaries of that right are. The alternative is what we're doing now- to allow the legislature and courts to define the boundaries of the rights as we go along. If you're cool with that, then that's all good. If you're not, then you need a clear cut, objective, line where you believe the right to bear arms is limited.

If you want to contend that it is an absolute right which cannot be infringed, you need to define that right in a way that will always be applicable.

Your premise here is patently flawed; in fact it is flatly false.

The nuts and scumbags outlined in bold print, who commit felonies with weapons, do not obtain those weapons legally; do not register them or concern themselves with whether those weapons are legal; in short they do not obey the law.

The two largest sources of guns used in crimes, by far, are guns which were either legally purchased by the perpetrator and guns which were stolen from somebody who legally purchased them. If a gun can't be sold legally, the supply of that kind of gun in the US is radically curtailed. Thats why in countries with far stricter gun laws you don't see nearly so many gun related crimes. Certainly, once the guns are out there, we can't get them back. But I'm not proposing making any guns currently legal illegal. I'm just talking about where the line is for you for what sorts of gun not currently legal, or guns not yet invented, where you would say that they are too deadly to be sold to the general population.
 
Since the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure the citizen had parity with the soldier in the employ of a would be tyrant, why shouldn't the standards rise as technology improves?

Because as those weapons that a soldier carries become more and more deadly, the negative impacts of allowing the public to have those guns increase. So, just to way over simplify it, say that the benefit of citizens being able to take on soliers is a 7. The downside of psychopaths having easy access to muskets is maybe a 2 because they really just aren't that deadly. Maybe the downside of psychopaths having modern rifles and handguns is a 5. Maybe the downside of psychopaths having easy access to fully automatic weapons is an 8. And maybe the downside of psychopaths in the future having easy access to some kind of super deadly future weapon in 100 years is a 10, in 500 years maybe it's a 18, and so on. See what I'm saying? The benefit of being able to overthrow the government doesn't increase, but the disadvantage of having civilians equipped like soldiers increases as those weapons get more and more dangerous. Somebody might argue that handgun technology has already reached the point where the disadvantages outweigh the advantage Somebody else might argue that handguns today are below that line, but that machine guns are over that line. Or, somebody might argue that machine guns are below that line, but that some kind of future weapon that could kill 500 people in a minute would be over the line. No sane person can say that we'll never hit the line though. So, I'm asking you guys where you would mark the line where the disadvantage would outweigh the advantage. How much destructive force in the hands of individuals would be too much for it be balanced out by the remote possiblity of some militia rising up and overthrowing the government?
 
What do you mean? Obviously most folks are good law abiding folks. But there are 311 million people in this country. There are psychopaths, mass murderers, terrorists, drug addicts, nazis, mentally ill people, cults, white supremacists, black supremacists, conspiracy nuts, extortionists, theives, gangs, organized crime, and assasins amongst those 311 million. Whatever law we make for the law abiding folks also determines what kind of weaponry those folks have access to.
Spare me the socialist rhetoric. You would delete the 2nd Amendment, like the good socialist you are.
 
Spare me the socialist rhetoric. You would delete the 2nd Amendment, like the good socialist you are.

Hmm, I was looking for some input on how to read the issue, but instead I just get an angry concession from you... Ah well. Maybe some of the other guys have a better grasp on the subject.
 
I disagree. If you compare an AK47 to a musket, we've already made that sort of leap once. So, if we're going to apply the logic that was created to deal with muskets to AK47s, my question is, where is the line?

Your "phaser" line of argument remains fallacious and filled with error.

Tell me, how much do you know about firearms, actually?

A musket fired a bullet...technically a lead ball. An AK47 fires bullets. While the AK47 is a more advanced weapon in type, it remains essentially the same in character: like the musket, it fires bullets. The destructive power of a bullet is to make a small hole, just like the musket ball.

The flintlock musket was invented in the 1500s...the AK47 in the 20th century. Over 400 years and firearms, though much improved, still fire bullets.

You are postulating that in 50 years some technology for which there is not even a theory ("a [man portable] phaser than can melt a stadium and kill everyone in it in seconds") and using it as an argument against the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Do you see how preposterous this is? In order to have the energy to "melt a stadium", your not-even-hypothetical "phaser" would have to have an energy storage capacity approaching that of a tactical nuclear weapon. There is no reason to believe this will be feasible in 50 years, and it is a stretch to believe it will be feasible in 500 years. Energy density is a tricky thing and not so easily manipulated.

Let the far future deal with this situation IF it ever arises, and let's deal with the present and the near-term future.... which is quite a handful by itself.

It is likely that within our lifetime, guns will continue to fire bullets. They will probably do so more accurately, which is a good thing... accurate shots hit their intended target, not innocent bystanders... and some will fire larger quantities of bullets at higher velocities.

Let's get back to what you actually know about firearms. Do you know there are selective-fire AK47's, and there are semi-auto AK47's? Do you understand those terms? Do you know how the two types are regulated differently under present law?

Are you aware that even a full-auto AK47 is actually not a "machine gun"? It is not something that can very effectively be used to spray bullets "like a garden hose" with any accuracy. If you try it you'll be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn. Have you ever fired automatic weapons before? The usual method, taught by the military because it is the most effective, is to fire short bursts of AIMED fire at a single target, typically in bursts of 2-4 rounds. This gives 2-4 chances to hit the target.

Hosing full-auto around is also known as "spray and pray", because of its ineffectiveness. Recoil results in muzzle-climb and tends to take the stream of bullets off the target quickly unless it is a heavy mounted weapon.

It is not the same as, say an M60 belt-fed LMG.

Many people have an exaggerated idea of the "power" of the AK47. The fact is it is a highly reliable weapon, but uses an intermediate-power cartridge intended for modest range and modest accuracy.

A Remington 700 bolt-action 30-06 is actually a deadlier weapon using a far more powerful cartridge. People don't freak about Rem700's because they don't "look evil". :roll:

I don't have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning AK47's, or AR-15's, M4's or similar weapons. These are not the "weapons of mass destruction" antigunners make them out to be.


If the right to bear arms is to be treated as an absolute right, we need to define exactly what the boundaries of that right are. The alternative is what we're doing now- to allow the legislature and courts to define the boundaries of the rights as we go along. If you're cool with that, then that's all good. If you're not, then you need a clear cut, objective, line where you believe the right to bear arms is limited.
If you want to contend that it is an absolute right which cannot be infringed, you need to define that right in a way that will always be applicable.

I've defined it before on this forum, thus:

1. Any weapon suitable for use in militia service, specifically a weapon defined as a "small arm", suitable for infantry use as a soldier's personal weapon.
2. Any other weapon useable for self-defense, sport, or other lawful purposes.

A weapon capable of "melting a stadium" would probably fall under the headings of support weapons or artillery, if not WMDs, and in any future that I or my kids or grandkids will see would probably not be an infantry small-arm/personal weapon.





The two largest sources of guns used in crimes, by far, are guns which were either legally purchased by the perpetrator and guns which were stolen from somebody who legally purchased them.

The bolded quote is bull.

Firearms as Used in Crime
Annual Criminal Abuse of Firearms Nationally: Less than 0.2% of all firearms, and less than 0.4% of all handguns. More than 99.8% of all guns, and 99.6% of all handguns are NOT used in criminal activity in any given year.(BATF, FBI)

Nationally convictions for 'attempt to purchase' by disqualified individuals under Brady now total 7 since early 1994. There are now in excess of 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws on the books, yet few if any have proven clearly effective in reducing violence or a criminal's access to firearms. Some 93% of firearms used in crime are reported as stolen or come from some other uncontrollable source.(DPS/BCI, US DoJ, BATF)

On to another point:

teamosil said:
If a gun can't be sold legally, the supply of that kind of gun in the US is radically curtailed. Thats why in countries with far stricter gun laws you don't see nearly so many gun related crimes.

In Britain, most beloved of places to admire by gun-control advocates, gun crime increased after draconian gun control was enacted. Violent crime in general is a serious problem in Britain, and a huge subject of debate among Brits. Accusations against the government and police of "cooking down" stats on violent and property crime have been flying for years. Severe curtailment of citizens right to effective self-defense has emboldened criminals, along with wishy-washy punishements for criminals caught.
Britain is an island nation, btw, that never had anywhere near as many guns in private hands as the US does...it is also a country that even back when there was hardly any gun control, it had less violent crime and less gun crime than many other nations, indicating that cultural factors are also an issue. As mentioned though, violent crime is on the rise and a serious problem there, according to many.

Comparing the US to other nations on this subject is comparing apples and oranges...conditions are too different.

If a gun couldn't be sold legally in the US, it could be smuggled in from other countries just as easily as dope is. The only reason this isn't done more already is because presently there is no need. If you can't keep criminals from getting imported dope, you aren't going to keep criminals from getting illegal guns. By far, gun control laws impact and impair law-abiding citizens by causing them to be less well-armed than the criminals that prey on them.


Certainly, once the guns are out there, we can't get them back. But I'm not proposing making any guns currently legal illegal. I'm just talking about where the line is for you for what sorts of gun not currently legal, or guns not yet invented, where you would say that they are too deadly to be sold to the general population.

When they do not meet the criteria I noted above. I will not address highly-improbable fantasy weapons like handheld "phasers" with the power to "melt a stadium", such arguments are red herrings.

G.
 
Last edited:
I've defined it before on this forum, thus:

1. Any weapon suitable for use in militia service, specifically a weapon defined as a "small arm", suitable for infantry use as a soldier's personal weapon.
2. Any other weapon useable for self-defense, sport, or other lawful purposes.

A weapon capable of "melting a stadium" would probably fall under the headings of support weapons or artillery, if not WMDs, and in any future that I or my kids or grandkids will see would probably not be an infantry small-arm/personal weapon.

This definition if fairly vague. What is a militia in your definition? The lethality of a soldier has steadily increased through all of human history. Do you believe that will stop now? If not, is there a line with regards to lethality where you would say that it is too lethal of a weapon to sell to the public?

Apparently the phaser is too abstract of an example for you to consider it. Say instead that we're talking about a hand held machine gun with comprable capabilities to one of those helicopter guns that can tear down a house. Would that be over the line for you? How about a hand held machine gun twice that powerful. Certainly things like that are coming, right? Am I correct that you would support that weapon being made available to the public if it were issued to the soldiers? Even if they invented some weapon 20 times more deadly than that?

The bolded quote is bull.

Your quotes don't respond to my argument at all. I'm saying most guns used in crimes are either purchased legally or stolen from someone who purchased them legally. Stats about what percentage of guns are used in crime or how effective the current gun control laws are are not relevant to that point.

Also, the argument for why a militia needs comprable firepower to what a soldier has relies on the assumption that military strength is primarily determined by soldiers rather than bombers, missles, intel, etc. As I posted earlier, that is no longer the case. So, that would render the militia argument irrelevant, no? Or do you have a response to that argument?
 
Last edited:
This definition if fairly vague. What is a militia in your definition? The lethality of a soldier has steadily increased through all of human history. Do you believe that will stop now? If not, is there a line with regards to lethality where you would say that it is too lethal of a weapon to sell to the public?

The definition is as precise as you're likely to get, short of a list of specific weapons. The original AWB tried that list... didn't work very well.

Apparently the phaser is too abstract of an example for you to consider it.
You may save the snide remarks for someone who will be affected by them. The fact is your example was ludicrously improbable due to energy-density-storage issues, and is a red herring in any discussion about the foreseeable future.

Say instead that we're talking about a hand held machine gun with comprable capabilities to one of those helicopter guns that can tear down a house. Would that be over the line for you? How about a hand held machine gun twice that powerful. Certainly things like that are coming, right? Am I correct that you would support that weapon being made available to the public if it were issued to the soldiers? Even if they invented some weapon 20 times more deadly than that?

Again, you exhibit a lack of understanding about firearms in general, and energy issues in particular. "Those helicopter guns that can tear down a house" is difficult for me to decipher... possibly you are referring to the rotary cannon carried by the A-10 Warthog? The one that uses depleted uranium slugs?

Such a weapon probably could not be made man-portable, or something that could be used as a personal small-arm. The amount of energy that it puts out causes such enormous recoil that the A-10 had to be literally built around the weapon, and built to sustain the tremendous recoil of it. A human being who attempted to hold such a weapon in-hand and fire it would be literally mashed to a pulp by the recoil. To design a weapon capable of projecting that amount of kinetic energy without a similar amount of recoil would violate a variety of laws of physics.

You continue to damage your own argument by using examples that are not credible. My skepticism is not because of a lack of imagination or abstract thinking capacity, but is instead because I have a grasp of basic physics and extensive knowlege of firearms.

You are postulating levels of destructive power in handheld weapons that are so improbable as to be in the realm of fantasy any time in the next 50 or 100 years.

Again, I will point out that this is as preposterous as arguing about the principle of free speech by using telepathy as a counterpoint. There is no telepathy known to exist, and no scientific basis for it.

There is no scientific basis for an individual infantryman being able to use a 40mm rotary cannon, or some hypothetical "lightweight-version" that puts out the same amount of kinetic energy, as a personal weapon.



Your quotes don't respond to my argument at all. I'm saying most guns used in crimes are either purchased legally or stolen from someone who purchased them legally. Stats about what percentage of guns are used in crime or how effective the current gun control laws are are not relevant to that point.

You apparently attempted to assert that guns used in crimes were often legally purchased by the person who committed the crime. I pointed out that this is not so, as DoJ stats show that 99.8% of legally owned guns are never used in a crime. Your dismissal of this fact is specious.


Also, the argument for why a militia needs comprable firepower to what a soldier has relies on the assumption that military strength is primarily determined by soldiers rather than bombers, missles, intel, etc. As I posted earlier, that is no longer the case. So, that would render the militia argument irrelevant, no? Or do you have a response to that argument?

General Yamamoto had one: When the Japanese High Command was discussing a possible invasion of the US mainland, General Yamamoto advised against it, saying "There would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass."

The rifleman is not irrelevant to modern warfare; ultimately, when the bombers and cruise missles have stopped flying, all ground is taken and held by the rifleman. Bombers, missles and so on can be countered to a large degree by 4th Generation Warfare methods. The existence of a citizen militia is a deterrent to tyranny and invasion still. The Afgani Mujahadeen kept the Russian Army in a mess for many years with little more than rifles, a few support weapons, and guerilla tactics.

G.
 
The Constitution as a concept and it reality is a living thing hence some evolution needs to take place. There are parts of the Constitution such as the Bill of Rights that should stand as is since those rights need to be considered inviolate. I did say that the Constitution as a concept is a living thing hence that is why there is a provision for amendments. If one contends that the Constitution was conceived and written as an absolute perfection and no amendment or addition is ever needed then slavery would still be the law of the land as one example.
 
The Constitution as a concept and it reality is a living thing hence some evolution needs to take place. There are parts of the Constitution such as the Bill of Rights that should stand as is since those rights need to be considered inviolate. I did say that the Constitution as a concept is a living thing hence that is why there is a provision for amendments. If one contends that the Constitution was conceived and written as an absolute perfection and no amendment or addition is ever needed then slavery would still be the law of the land as one example.

As long as we're amending the Constitution through the established legal process, rather than just ignoring it or reinterpreting it, I'm okay with that in general...but I agree that the Bill of Rights should remain untouched regardless.

There's a reason why the amendment process is difficult, a very good and wise reason.
 
As long as we're amending the Constitution through the established legal process, rather than just ignoring it or reinterpreting it, I'm okay with that in general...but I agree that the Bill of Rights should remain untouched regardless.

There's a reason why the amendment process is difficult, a very good and wise reason.

I agree absolutely that the the ammendment process needs to be something that requires a "dificult" task or process. Maybe I would suggest arduous.

The terms " ignoring[/B]and reinterpreting " are do by nature have subjective nuances. What appears in your mind as ignoring may indeed be compliance or adherence for someone else? Nuances in interpretation are legitimate over a long span of time. Certain aspects ( I will basically exclude the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution which were interpreted one may in 1798 may have a variance in nuance of interpretation in the 21 st century just based upon the fact that society, science, economics, and just life has changed .
 
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.
1: Its not -my- limit
2: W/O the proper weapons, the militia cannot do its job.
 
This definition if fairly vague. What is a militia in your definition? The lethality of a soldier has steadily increased through all of human history. Do you believe that will stop now? If not, is there a line with regards to lethality where you would say that it is too lethal of a weapon to sell to the public?
What do YOU see as the limit, and how does that limit jive with established precedent?
 
Can anyone provide a sources to the 'original' intent behind the constitution by the signatories of the constitution?
 
No response from our supporters of judicial activism? I was looking forward to hearing what their thoughts were.

judicial activism is just a term used by those that don't care for the decision. you are governed by laws not by democratic policy. a judge is to lay aside feelings and interpret the law not listen you your one voice crying out or the many voices crying out.
 
Last edited:
judicial activism is just a term used by those that don't care for the decision. you are governed by laws not by democratic policy. a judge is to lay aside feelings and interpret the law not listen you your one voice crying out or the many voices crying out.

No.

"Judicial activism" is the term used for judges imposing pre-conceived goals upon cases without any foundation in the Constitution.

Roe v Wade is an example.
 
?
The post I responded to was a requestion for information.
What point did -you- see?

That it's difficult or impossible to discern the original intent of the Constitution, as the people who ratified it were not a monolithic entity.
 
That it's difficult or impossible to discern the original intent of the Constitution, as the people who ratified it were not a monolithic entity.

When did he make that point?
 
Back
Top Bottom