...they would have still written the second amendment the same way? "Arms" is so vague. Someone could *theoretically* argue that private civilians should have the right to bear nuclear warheads under this terminology but common sense dictates that this should probably be restricted. What do you believe the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote "arms"? Do you believe they left it intentionally vague hoping and/or expecting modern government to interpret the law for today's needs? I am neither advocating for or protesting the second amendment; I just find it a very interesting topic so I hope everyone that answers will be respectful towards me as well as one another.
2006-12-21 05:50:24 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This is why (IMO) they included the Judicial branch of government. Their job is to interpret the laws and Constitution. Some of the justices try to make sense of it, adapting it to modern times, while others are more strict, and go by what the original intention is.
The writers of the Constitution were also smart enough to include a clause on how to amended it. As times change, there will be parts that become obsolete and need to be changed or even eliminated.
2006-12-21 06:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by Mutt 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe that the framers of the Constitution left alot intentionally vague because they had the wisdom to realize that they were merely mortal men with the best intentions. They knew they didn't know everything. It's why the Constitution is a "living document." Otherwise, women wouldn't have any rights because the constitution technically only mentions men. While the idea behind the Constitution, individual freedoms, government limitations, the idea of democracy, etc., is fairly concrete, the way about acknowledging this within the text is vary open to interpretation. It's what is both great and bad about the Constitution. However, I think the key idea of bearing arms is that they meant a weapon an individual would typically use. The nuclear weapon would be along the lines of an aircraft carrier. Not a rifle. To me, it wouldn't have mattered if the average person was walking along with a long bow. The writers intended the person to be able to bear arms. To further the long bow analogy...if we discounted firearms, the same question could be applied to advances in that technology. Would the framers have written in the right to bear arms if they'd known about the advancement of archery where you now have compound bows and better cross-bows? I believe so. The thing that most people don't grasp about the Constitution is that it doesn't GIVE us any of our rights. It ACKNOWLEDGES that we have been given these rights by God and that the Government can't take it away from us. The rights are there, they just have to be realized.
2006-12-23 21:56:58 · answer #2 · answered by Daryl E 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well considering the technology of the time I believe they certainly meant what they said. Your point is well taken because the idea of arms is self defense. In theory we are threatened by nuclear warheads so securing our own could be constituted as arms. But to for-see the destructive weapons to be created 200 years in the future would be unlikely. The idea behind "arms" is in very good intentions. I think our lawmakers have manipulated it to fit the times very well.
2006-12-21 06:05:41 · answer #3 · answered by the_myth_of_trust 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe historical documents show that they had in mind whatever type of "arm" that is available to allow citizens to keep the government in check.
They knew full well what it would be like if the gov't could do whatever they wanted to do.
Armed members of a society are 'citizens' while unarmed members of a society are 'subjects'.
They did not leave it vague to allow interpretation by members of the judicial system.
It isn't vague in anyway and in fact it is fully clear what they meant to say and they said it well.
2006-12-21 06:06:00 · answer #4 · answered by BigDozer66 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of the Founding Fathers were likely aware of the many attempts to create repeating firearms, including the Puckle Gun. I doubt they foresaw anything approching nuclear weapons. But private citizens did purchase and own cannons.
2006-12-23 14:45:58 · answer #5 · answered by jmwildenthal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
except the founding fathers ought to tell the destiny, that may not smart. whilst the 2nd exchange replaced into written the only weapons available have been muskets and we had no militia or army, cities did no longer have sheriffs and there have been no state marshalls.
2016-10-15 09:28:35 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The framers of the constitution made it legal to own firearms of the time to protect people against the firearms of the time. If they had assault weapons back then, they would be allowed to own assault weapons to protect themselves from an enemy that had them.
2006-12-24 23:15:56 · answer #7 · answered by » mickdotcom « 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the founding fathers new exactly what they were doing and in fact the constitution should really be kept intact with absolutely ZERO amendments FOREVER... it is what they wanted and they were infallible...
2006-12-21 06:19:54 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Do you think they could have predicted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, marching with NAMBLA in a gay pride parade?
2006-12-21 05:58:14 · answer #9 · answered by MaryCheneysAccessory 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋