or You Either Support the Entire Constitution or You Support None of It
My really liberal friends will claim that the most important ammendment to the constitution is the first ammendment. I can understand why. It's the ammendment that currently keeps religious folks from bringing their gods into the classroom (until the Supreme Court gives a new interpretation of the "establishment clause"), and makes sure that we all have the right to say whatever we want about anything.
That first ammendment covers everything from criticism of your leaders to pictures of 19 year old women dressed as Catholic school girls. Expression is expression and any limitation on speech is a start down a very slippery slope.
I agree with them.
Many of my conservative friends will tell you that the second ammendment is the most important ammendment to the constitution. It's what gives us the right to arm ourselves against attackers, potential enemies, and potential governmental abuse of power. The second ammendment doesn't allow for interpretation. It means you can arm yourself with the best available weapons you can find. It means that you don't criminalize lawabiding citizens because certain individuals can't responsibly own firearms.
I agree with them.
But I've noticed something strange. Most of the folks in either of these groups don't agree with most of the folks in the other groups. There are a lot of folks who will go on and on about the freedom of speech and then see no problem going on a diatribe against guns, gun owner, and gun sellers. Many second ammendment supporters will give you the classic "from my cold dead hands" speech. Get them talking about pornography or anything not relflecting Judeo Christian values, and they'll talk about why we need laws against it.
I've got a small idea I'd like to try out on you. The Constitution of the United States of America is not menu card at a sushi bar. You do not get to choose a spicy tuna roll while leaving rainbow roll behind. If you support any part of the Constitution, you must support it all. If you don't like something in the Constitution, then you may work to change said document as decribed within the document itself. That's the why the framers were so smart. They knew that parts of the document may become less relevant with time, so they gave us a way to change it.
But for now, if it's in there, you can't have one ammendment without the others.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Can't have one without the other...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Our poor 10th Amendment gets trampled all the time. I think it's pretty much ignored. Maybe politicians can't count that high.
The only issue I take with your argument is that the second amendment begins with the words "A well regulated militia . . ." which is somewhat different to my my mind than every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry arming him/herself to the teeth with never a by your leave.
I am with you and the slippery slope fear of the Constitution as an a la carte menu, but there are certain limitations placed upon speech, a few of which even make sense (no yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; no making or possessing pornography with participants, like kids, who can't give consent). Having been awake for the past 6 years, I'm painfully aware of the beatings our civil liberties have taken, but surely there has to be some middle ground between one's need (and right) to possess firearms and my need for firearms not to be so easily accessible to unbalanced teenagers and various other ne'er do wells.b
"I'm painfully aware of the beatings our civil liberties have taken, but surely there has to be some middle ground between one's need (and right) to possess firearms and my need for firearms not to be so easily accessible to unbalanced teenagers and various other ne'er do wells."
I'm not totally in disagreement with you, but who determines where that middle ground is? I don't trust the current powers to do that.
In a perfect world, I'd be able to trust parents to control their kids and the laws in place to stop n'er-do-wells from getting firearms to work. Obviously, that's way to optimistic.
"The only issue I take with your argument is that the second amendment begins with the words "A well regulated militia . . ." which is somewhat different to my my mind than every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry arming him/herself to the teeth with never a by your leave."
American Heritage Dictionary -
mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The bit before the comma is generally accepted as preamble; the bit after it is the actual law. So the law isn't saying that people with guns must be part of a "well regulated militia". The law is simply saying that in order to allow the formation of well regulated militias in the first place, the right to bear arms must not be infringed.
There is another version with a comma in a different place, and that could potentially be interpreted differently, but that isn't the one ratified by the states.
I'm not particularly pro-gun, btw, but that's what the Constitution means, and so for any serious attempt at gun control reform to be made, there would have to be another amendment added to the constitution.
Oh, right, so every 2nd amendment enthusiast is a bible-thumping moralist idiot? Talk about being small-minded.
"Oh, right, so every 2nd amendment enthusiast is a bible-thumping moralist idiot?"
Um...no. Nowhere in the post does it say that. I make a point about most of my really liberal friends and most of my really conservative friends and how each group can be guilty of choosing the parts of the constitution they want to defend. The section of the post you're referring to does not comment on "every 2nd ammendment enthusiast."
That would be silly since most "2nd ammendment enthusiasts" I hang out with share my own political/social/religious views.
Thanks for stopping by though. Have a nice day.
Post a Comment