English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

does that mean that the 1st Amendment freedom of the press is also outdated and should apply only to the print media, or that the freedom of speech should only apply to actual speech and not the internet? Or perhaps that the 4th Amendment protection from search and seizure should only apply to your physical domicile and possessions, not your electronic and wire communications?

2007-05-10 06:36:08 · 12 answers · asked by thegubmint 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

I would have to argue that the militia clause in the 2nd is not a limiter but a statement of fact. The 2nd refers to "the people" in the same manner as the 1st refers to "the people" in the assembly clause. That would also be the same "people" referred to in the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, yet no one is proposing to limit those freedoms because of today's societal changes.

2007-05-10 06:47:54 · update #1

12 answers

This is a point that not many people understand. If we change the 2nd Amendment to apply to society today, none of the other amendments are safe.

We're constantly seeing threats to our freedom of speech. A cartoon is drawn poking fun at a non-Christian religion, and the cartoon is taken out of papers. If a comic were drawn making fun of a Christian religion, nothing would be done about it.

The militia clause was placed in the Constitution for protection from ourselves (corruption at a government level), as well as protection from foreign armies.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

2007-05-10 08:05:44 · answer #1 · answered by peacefulwarrior 2 · 1 1

the Constitution has an elastic clause, that is so it can stretch to fit into the new times. that can be argued though. the second amendment pertains to a militia, and back then, no one could fathom a rifle that could shoot thousands of yards accuratly or fire off thousands of rounds in a minute.... i am all for gun ownership as i am a cop, but there needs to be a line... i dont want anyone in civilian life walking around with an m249 SAW or even a fully auto anything.

and do you know there are 9 major catagories of exceptions to the search and seizure laws, and even then, if we, as officers, thought we were acting in a manor that was correct, we are protected.

2007-05-10 06:45:01 · answer #2 · answered by Kevy 7 · 2 1

None of th efreedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are outdated. Granted, details change--we no longer live in a frontier society where an isolated community may need a militia to defend itself from attack. But the central point of the 2nd remains: an individual does have a right to defend him/her self.

There's a lot of propaganda from the right-wing about curtailing civili liberties and civil rights--but that isn't new. This element of our society has always wanted restrictions on individual liberty--for everyone but themselves.

2007-05-10 07:08:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

curiously, there is an upcoming attempt in government.. lookup the 2d modification . supply it a radical diagnosis and make sure on your man or woman suggestions no count if it is suitable. Why became into it lined in the form? became into it attempting to avert domination of government by potential of the main inhabitants state? do no longer we desire a chief ? would not there ought to be somebody in fee ? How else can the Democrats blame all ills on President Bush, whilst they have been instrumental of additionally putting us the place we are on the instant?

2016-11-27 00:30:00 · answer #4 · answered by wing 4 · 0 0

Your line of reasoning doesn't make sense. The second amendment clearly says that the right to bear arms is to facilitate a militia because it was written before the United States had an organized army. That is why it is outdated. We no longer need to keep a militia to defend ourselves. Our military is supplied with arms necessary to defend us.

2007-05-10 06:42:19 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan H 3 · 3 2

That's a false argument. Just b/c one aspect is outmoded does not mean the whole thing is.

Remember, the 2nd Amendement allows arms for a WELL REGULATED MILITA. Stop ignoring that!

2007-05-10 06:46:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

Liberals tend to think the whole Constitution is outdated and would like it revised. Our Founding Fathers were incredibly ingenious and wrote the Constitution to apply for all centuries.

2007-05-10 06:47:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

I'm part of a well regulated militia, it's called the NRA. So how is that part outdated?

2007-05-10 07:05:49 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2 2

There's a difference between something being outdated and something being misinterpreted.

2007-05-10 06:48:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

The 2nd isn't outdated, so don't worry!

2007-05-10 06:40:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers