09-19-2017, 03:08 PM
(09-19-2017, 02:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Eh, the people who tried to interpret it that way for a period of time were the people who don't like the 2nd Amendment.
When it was made, the "militia" was a guy riding out to the various farms and saying "hey, grab your rifles" and they'd all gather together. Bam, your militia. Basically a bunch of random guys with guns. They had no uniforms. So their ideas of "well regulated" is quite different than modern day. They wore whatever they owned, carried their own personal weapons, "trained" themselves like maybe 2-4 times a year.
Regardless, the "right of the people to KEEP and bear arms" was always pretty clearly stated.
So I would argue the decade old interpretation is actually much older than that, because it was the original interpretation. People only changed it when they wanted to try to start disarming the populace. Much like the British did at the start of the Revolutionary War, which is why the Amendment existed in the first place, and was important enough that they felt the need to make it the 2nd on their list.
The same as when people say "the Founding Fathers expected people to have muskets" yet that was the exact same rifle the military had, and civilian merchant ships would have cannons. (Not that I am saying I need a cannon, for anyone who wants to only chip in with "oh, then we should all have nukes too, derp da derp?")
The point is that it had nothing to do with joining the military, and all to do with being able to maintaining a state free from oppression, regardless if that is external or internal as the British were both during that time.
But the historical context is also important to keep in mind that the Constitution was written with no intention of a standing army existing. The militia was the army, and so when we look at the intention of the Second we must look at it in that context. The existence of a standing army was seen as a threat to the republic. Now, I could argue that since we have that threat in existence, removing an armed citizenry (creating another threat to the republic) would not be wise. But there is a deeper philosophical debate that could be had there and this isn't the thread for it.
My main point in this response is that when we look at the context of the original Constitution, we tend to ignore historical context that would be in disagreement with us. This is why I see it as important we revisit the document thoroughly.
(09-19-2017, 02:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If this convention happened, I would want it to be on the 4th. I still have no idea how civil forfeiture ISN'T Unconstitutional.
The 10th would be pretty good, too, considering how somehow we've gotten reversed on it. It's supposed to be the Federal Government only has the power that the States give it, but we've arrived at a point where the Federal Government is making all the choices on what a State can and can't do now.
This is a sticky wicket in a lot of ways. I don't agree with going back to the dual federalism of the pre-Civil War era, but we definitely need to revisit the powers. Asset forfeiture is another good one, but also keep in mind that we have yet to see the 14th fully realized because it hasn't been litigated down to the state level for those things such as indictment by grand jury, jury trial in a civil case, and excessive fines. All things we have federal protections against, and should have state level because of the 14th, but because no court cases have gone forth they have not been incorporated into the 14th.
I digress.
