If we follow Mr. Harris's logic, technically we should not allow press freedoms for the electronic news media because "freedom of the press" referred to the print media available in the late 18th-century. Therefore, freedom of the press should be allowed only to those publications that are created by letters carved onto wood blocks which are then coated with ink and pressed onto paper.
literal interpretations ARE not practical - when you're trying to weasel your way around it!
The authors of the Constitution knew what they were talking about. If they meant the "right of the state" or the "right of the militia" to keep and bear arms they would have said so. The language clearly states that the people have that right.
--United States Constitution, Article VI
We gettin' rid of that one too?
Else how could lawyers work their solemn and sophistical magic?
Definitely not 'practical', LOL!
Literal interpretation of Constitution not conducive to liberalism.
The Constitution was indeed written by Brilliant and thoughtful men. These brilliant and thoughtful men wrote the Constitution in clear concise English grammar. This allowed the least among us to understand the meaning of the words. All written law is for the expressed purpose of a literal interpretation long after it is written.
The Constitution is not a “flexible” document. The amendment process allows the Constitution to forever reflect who we are and what we are and eliminated any necessity to re-interpret its meanings.
It does give me pause when I consider who these people are who reject the amendment process in favor of their own re-interpretation of the words. If the nation wants a separation of church and state or want the individual to no longer have the right to own a means of self-defense then amend the Constitution. Why do these people fear the words of the Constitution? These people scare me and I may not tolerate them much longer.
When you read "Congress shall make no law" do you really want to go through contortions to come up with a theory allowing Congress to make those laws?
Please see tagline.
One of the historical contexts for the second amendment was that the common practice of monarchs and tyrants was to confiscate private firearms any time they were about to start cracking down on the population. The founding fathers knew this, had lived through this and wanted it made clear that this would not be allowed in the new nation.
I remember having a western civ class years ago and reading about various revolutions and uprisings. Every time it seemed that the governments first action was to outlaw and confiscate weapons from individuals. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why, nor why the founding fathers would want the second amendment just the way it is.
Just another pseudo-intellectual toff seeking to get his nuts off telling everyone else what to think and how to think it. Worthless bum fodder.
"They are equally wrong. The Founding Fathers did not have the luxury of, or the desire for, a standing army, so a well-regulated militia was necessary for the security of our young country. This is clearly and obviously no longer true, which severely impacts the relevance of the Second Amendment and is never mentioned by the pro-gun right."
Uhhh, no. Seeing as Scott Harris likes to use quotes of founding fathers, I will provide in kind:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"No free men shall be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria in Commonplace Book
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any...." -- James Madison in Federalist No. 48
"A government that does not trust it's law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust." - James Madison
Note that they all refer to citizens, not members of militia.
Commerce Clause bump.
What he really means is that he doesn't like the second amendment, but since there are to many voting gun lovers to get an amendment to the constitution passed eliminating it, he will just argue that the second amendment is not practical.
In other words, he would rather subvert the constitution then follow it.
The militia issue was also central to the shaping of the Second Amendment to the Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms. If the founding fathers recognized the centrality of freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, they also made clear those freedoms would only remain secure if the people could keep and bear arms as an ultimate check on the power of the government. The Second Amendment has been much politicized since its adoption as part of the Bill of Rights, but there is no question that the architects of our government believed that the people in arms, the militia,were the final guarantors of our freedom. Any subsequent reinterpretations of that amendment must start with the fact that our leaders, fresh from their experiences in the Revolutionary War, relied on the militia as the centerpiece of our national military establishment. The concept of the militia and the right to bear arms are inextricably joined.
In other words, the militia is not just a national guard, but "the people in arms" as "the final guarantor" of our freedoms. Plus, the Constitution elsewhere grants Congress the right to raise a standing army, which, although small, existed at the adoption of the Constitution, along with a Department of War (the Army) to run it.
The Framers understood the 2nd Amendment as at the same time an individual and a group right.