Originalist view on the Second Amendment

[dutch508]

Star Member Shermann (3,191 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215370804

Originalist view on the Second Amendment

Originalism, in the context of the U.S. Constitution, is defined as a legal philosophy that the words should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written. This philosophy is espoused namely by Supreme Court justices Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas.

Liberals tend to shun this interpretation as it is perceived as an inflexible and regressive roadblock to the organic evolution of civil rights over time. However, there may be a silver lining here for the left. The right to bear arms has done that very thing, passively expanded and become significantly more momentous as firearm and ammunition technology has advanced. This demonstrably violates the very tenets of Originalism. To keep this power strictly aligned with the original intent, it should be limited to only 18th century firearm technology. This includes flintlocks, muzzleloaders, and muskets. Cartridges and magazines and repeating weapons came later and thus should not be covered without a Constitutional amendment.

What say ye Amy Coney Barrett?

 

Star Member Abnredleg (402 posts)

4. This interpretation creates issues for the First

since it would mean that TV, radio and the Internet would not be protected since the only media existing in the 18th Century is speech and print.

Star Member Shermann (3,191 posts)

15. This is not a pro-Originalism thread

It's about identifying hypocrisy and calling out SCOTUS when they use Originalism in a blatantly partisan and uneven way.

yagotme (849 posts)

6. "Magazine." A place to store ammunition.

"Repeating weapons." I give you the Puckle Gun, circa 1718: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

And how do you whisk away "keep and bear arms"? "Keep", to retain, "Bear", to carry.

"Cartridge." Late 1500's. https://www.britannica.com/technology/cartridge-ammunition

Methinks a bit of research was needed before posting.

Star Member Shermann (3,191 posts)

13. OK antique puckle guns are permitted as well

The point here is not so much in enacting gun control, it's in identifying hypocrisy and calling out SCOTUS when they use Originalism in a blatantly partisan and uneven way.

 

[ADsOutburst]

You have to believe the founding fathers were incredibly unimaginative to think they didn't know firearms technology would progress.

Also, if you're concerned that the Constitution hinders the evolution of society, the founding fathers thought of that too, and left us a means to address just such a problem: It's called "amending the Constitution".

[SVPete]

You have to believe the founding fathers were incredibly unimaginative to think they didn't know firearms technology would progress.

Also, if you're concerned that the Constitution hinders the evolution of society, the founding fathers thought of that too, and left us a means to address just such a problem: It's called "amending the Constitution".

The Second Amendment was written to be understood as recognizing the right to own whatever is current firearm technology, not a right to own 18th Century technology fire arms. The FFs didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to think they only meant 18th and earlier centuries' technologies.