why we need unconditional carry

[Don V.]

I don't wish to offend anyone, but I'm always amazed by people that quote the Constitution, but really don't know anything about it. Obviously that's not everyone, but in my experience it's most people.

If you have never read the Federalist Papers, The Virginia Plan or The Ratification Debates, you really have no context to quote the Constitution from. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the end of a sentence that begins with, "A well regulated Militia being necessary."

Quoting the second amendment without reading or studying the context in which it was written, and how it fits in to the Bill of Rights is really doing yourself a disservice. Regardless of your position, this is where the knowledge is at to support and defend the position you take. A prime example, what did the "right of self preservation" mean at a time before there was such a thing a police force? This very thought was argued at that time. Besides, it's pretty good reading.

 

[BlueTrain]

I agree, yet the Federalist Papers, for instance, were not voted for by the people; neither was the constitution, even though it starts out, if I remember correctly, "We, the people." Those were radical days and not at all conservative in the sense we use the word now. All of the conservative people either left the country or kept their mouth shut. Some just moved further west.

You may recall that the constitution was not the first attempt at organizing the government of the United States. The previous one resulted in too weak a federal government. But still, it starts out, "to form a more perfect union," not "a more powerful and stronger government." It did work out that way, though. All revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of government.

The constitution did not support slavery, it merely accepted it. It was an issue that was not resolved with the constitution, which may be just as well, since it didn't solve all the other problems either. These days, were a new constitution to be written, I suspect it would be a hundred times longer.

 

[Don V.]

BlueTrain, good stuff.

Even though there were comprimises that had to be made to ratify the Constitution it was revolutionary. It is often said that "it's a document of it's time," "They couldn't forsee the future," etc, in reality it's true, but functionally they really are not true statements. It was believed when the Constitution was being debated and written, that they were really writing a "living document." "Living document" meaning it was based in principle and that it wasn't a "contract," outlining rights and responsibilities while dividing advantages between different groups or individuals. The radical concept was that right and wrong would always be right and wrong--yesterday, today and tomorrow. Regardless of the words, the principles of right and wrong would always stand the test of time. How do we live with each other beyond the god given inalienable rights.

The failure of the Constitution is also it's strength. Different people have different opinions of what right and wrong are. At one time people debated the virtues and evils of slavery, as already mentioned, just as today people debate the virtues and evils of guns. Unlike other documents like the Magna Carta, the Constitution does not tell us what the 2nd amendment means. We get to tell ourselves what it means. You're absolutely right that the people who debated, wrote and signed the constitution were radicals and progressives. They were not conservative. They believed it was a fluid document, but they also believed that if the day came that we decided that it is firm and hard as many today believe it to be, we have the right to that also.

That's the point of my earlier post and why knowing the context of the document is so important. The principles behind the document are way more important then the words. The context is in the principles. When you debate the principles, there is faith in each other. When you argue the words, you lose the faith in each other. Madison or Adams, I think?

Takes me back to my Master's Thesis on Economics, Environmental Regulations and Constitutional Authority. The Authority part put me in the middle of a circular firing squad of advisors. None of them agreed.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, yes and no.

The intent of the constitutional convention was to come up with something that worked better than what they already had, the Articles of Confederation. States rights are all fine and dandy but if you don't hang together, you all...well, you know the rest. It was not an attempt to cover everything for all times and all places. In fact, as soon as the ink was dry, there were already planning changes. Did you know the first copy was published in German, by the way?

Some of the original provisions were quite novel, like having the runner-up in the presidential election become the vice-president. But then, given as how most countries around the world were monarchies, everything about the document was novel. That's probably why no one ever thought about political parties and how they would fit in to our political life. There had never been any before.

While I said they were radical and not conservative in our contemporary sense, the still represented the gentry of the country. The leaders of the new country had been the leaders of the country before the revolution. It was not so much a revolution as a colonial war (and probably the first one at that). It was the new government that was revolutionary. The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, now those were revolutions.