My fav part is the utter destruction of the ACLU as a giant hypocrite right there in the beginning of the piece.
Candidly, the article didn’t do much in the way of explaining what the Framers’ intended with the Second Amendment. In fact, it even kind of ignores it.
Question. This is more directed at everyone. Do people genuinely care (even a little) about what the founding fathers intended for this country?
If so, why?
Yes, for a number of reasons, but it’s always important to look at what a drafter intended to do with a rule, law, or any written instrument (not just the Founding Fathers) to try and resolve ambiguities or uncertainties in the language.
1 Like
I think it gives the laws context when you read the federalist papers and other things. You’ll find the FF disagreed about alot of things.
What makes the country special is a founding document with negative rights and limited government. “Here’s the things the government can’t do”. While they borrowed alot from English common law the concept of founding a government by limiting it’s power is pretty special.
Or more importantly, does anyone know who got the boot on The Bachelor last night?
2 Likes
Are you talking about what I posted?
Trump just repealed Dodd -Frank
Anyone with understanding of this policy want to chime in
Absolutely
Well, because among other things, the whole thing is moot and so easily malleable without caring that there is no point in pretending to have any structure at all.
1 Like
Pretty massive law so I can only imagine certain portions were scaled back and/or changed.
As for the legislation itself, good intentions, but the law itself did the opposite of intended.
1 Like
Yes, I think that is the one you originally posted. The history is interesting, but it’s more about general theory on government than the actual look into what Madison actually wanted the 2A to accomplish.
You might find this interesting as well:
Madison is mentioned 73 times, but it’s been a while since I’ve read it.
This is a common theme in the government
1 Like
I guess my question is WHY do we care what the founding fathers intended. Laws passed when they couldn’t have possibly foreseen what the world would become and how it would change. In my mind, best case scenario, everything the founding fathers “wanted” is super outdated.
Do governments still oppress people in 2017? Do they still restrict freedom of speech, press, assembly, unwarranted search and seizures etc… yes they do. Very often (China, Russia, SA, occasionally the USA.)
Limited government is arguably MORE important today. The government now have access to technologies that make despotic rule very very easy. Imagine Hitler with the power of today’s NSA. The Politburo in China arguably has a better surveillance program than the NSA.
2 Likes
They’re the ones that wrote the document(s) that are the foundation of our way of governance…
They built in a process to amend the source document.
Self-governance and liberty are outdated?
2 Likes
Which is all fine and dandy. But why does what the FF wanted have anything to do with that beyond a crutch? The way things work should be because it’s how WE want it run. You know, the guys with a pulse.
Bringing in the “opinions” of a bunch of obsolete dead guys seems pointless to me I guess. It’s like arguing the original intent of meanings from the bible.
Not what I meant but I think you knew that lol. I guess it’s easier to phrase it this way. Lets say, HYPOTHETICALLY, you could go back in time and ask the FF what they TRULY meant about the 2nd amendment. Let’s say, HYPOTHETICALLY, when we get there, EVERY single one of them says “Oh shit we meant only military men between the age of 20 and 40 could have guns, were we not clear enough?!?!?”
Would this matter? Even in the slightest? I’d say society has decided that gun ownership is a right and I don’t give a damn what they intended, but that’s just me.
Lol, ya, it’d be pretty important…
The “founding” period, Madison, the Federalist papers, etc… are cited throughout District of Columbia V. Heller, which is the SCOTUS precedent for an individual right to keep and bear arms.
These things are all related. Society didn’t just go, “Hey, we think we should have a right to guns!”
So in this hypothetical that I came up with, you’d side with what the FF wanted over what society currently wants?
I guess I just don’t understand why people care more about the intent of the FF over what society currently wants.