A question for conservatives

That's noble of you. But you began this thread as an obvious attempt to show that 'conservatives' are willing to violate the constitution for the purpose of safety. Am I correct in presuming that you think you are not willing to do so? If that is the case, when I give my extreme example of an anachronistic application of one of those rights, it is not at all sufficient to say you don't "consider" that example to fall under the declared right. By the literal meaning, it does.

So I don't know if you will say that you are willing to 'violate the constitution in the name of safety,' or else that constitutional rights are open to what the people "consider" comes under those rights; because the latter makes the meaning of those rights entirely dependent on what the people think should be their meanings... in which case, it's not really the enumerated rights under the constitution, but the will of the people at any given time (with strong enough voting power to elect a president and senators to put justices in place with those views).

But which is it for you? 1)you advocate violating the constitution for the purpose of safety, or 2)the constitution just means what a vast majority of us want it to mean, ver batum notwithstanding?

 

Yes or No: Are nuclear weapons arms?
Yes or No: Does the constitution affirm the right to keep and bear arms?

 

There is nothing special about me. Actually, I am quite a boring person. However, I do have more understanding and intelligence than a hat rack.

 

Yes to both questions.

If you want to ask the question properly, ask why the Constitution affirms the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Aren't you a little confused there Mr Poncho? I think you were quoting Targus.

 

No - to question one.
Yes - to question two.

IMO Nuclear Weapons are beyond the scope of the constitutional meaning of "arms" and are of the scope of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WPM).

Admittedy, we can't know for sure whether the Founding Fathers would have agreed that a WPM device which could kill millions of people with one detonation (two, I suppose for fision) should be regulated by the government or not.

The basic question is - what was their scope of the definition of "arms" as related to the individual?

My opinion is that had they known the enormity of the power of a singular fission/fusion device which could anihilate Boston or Philadelphia by the action of one individual they would have agreed to keep it out of the hands of the citizenry.


HankD

 

Yeah, I meant SN. But yer special too NS. And ya doesn't hasta call me Mr.

 

Then I will re-ask a question. Was the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty completely misnamed?

But do we go by what the constitution says, or by what a particular era of citizenry thinks it should mean? The beginner of this thread was trying to show that 'conservatives' are willing to violate the constitution for the puropse of safety. So is he-- and you. You just want to rephrase what it is you are doing.

 

I don't know if the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty was completely misnamed, as I have never read it.

But first and foremost, I disagree with your assesment.
IMO, a nuclear weapon is not an "arm" which is covered by the right to bear "arms" in the definition of the pristine meaning of "arms" in the Constitution.

Second, as to my violation of the Constitution, I am not alone, most citizens violate the Constitution.

Anyone who uses fiber material money has violated the constitution which allows for gold and silver coinage only.

HankD

 

It is a problem of scale -

which no one on BB seems to have the capacity to understand in ANY context. When the Constitution was written it was impossible to destroy an entire city with the single use of one weapon. Capisec?

 

typo capisce

Capisce????

 

Capisco, ma qual è il punto?

EnricoD

 

That's the point here... saying "violate the constitution" as some kind of slur, when there are conditions that the constitutioners could not have envisioned, yet there has never been enough national temperament to amend the applicable part of the document according to its own methods.

 

I see what you are saying and I agree in that ours is a representative form of government of the people, by the people and for the people then if necessary, the Constitution should be amended according to the rules of the founding fathers assuming of course the consent of the governed.

There is another point. The judicial branch of the government conceivably could interpretive the "right to bear arms" clause to exclude WMDs (for instance).

What do you think? Would this work?

HankD

 

It would "work," but that's just more 'interpreting' the constitution according to what an era of citizenry thinks it should mean, not exactly what it say. Or, IOW, we do in fact have a government of man, not a government of law.

 

Just as a reminder:
Proper interpretation of the constitution within the realm of the established system of "checks and balances" is why the judicial branch of our government was instituted by the founding fathers.

This includes a change to the document in the form of an amendment.

It was not exactly cast in bronze a fact to which the Bill of Rights testifies. However what is amended must remain in the document as a legacy to both the original and latter interpretation.

What is WRONG is that certain interpretations have been and are being made at the executive and legislative level without the consent of the governed.

In fact the governed have made it clear what they want and do not want which is our unalienable right given from out Creator (as stated by the Founding Fathers).

e.g. The Healthcare Bill which we the people were not even allowed to read before passage but were rebuked for wanting to do so and told to wait until it's passed to see what's in it.

That goes beyond a compromise of traditional conservatism by the people but qualifies as a dictatorial command from the aristocracy.

IOW, take this and be quiet. You'll thank me later.

As to the original post: The issue concerning a private citizen owning and having the capability of detonating a nuclear device which could anihilate the City of Seattle (for instance) incinerating a population of millions and causing radiation poisoning, death and destruction within a 20 mile radius is a different issue altogether than my right to own a firearm as defined by the founding fathers.


HankD

 

The founding fathers did not define the right to own a firearm, or what kind of arms; they just ratified an amendment saying the people's right to do so will not be infringed.

 

True, but back then the citizens were better armed than the government.

 

Alcott, I understand but I also think you are missing my point.

I am not trying to win over anyone to my way of thinking, simply expressing my opinion.

In 1770's and 80's the common definition of a "fire" arm was a pistol or rifle (or any hand held weapon including knives and swords) with a separate definition for "ordinance" (canons, rockets, exposives) which technically were not "firearms" even then.

It is true that in later years a difference of opinion arose as to the scope of the meaning of "firearms" however nuclear fission or fusion is not "fire" in the sense of the meaning in 1776/1786 and even if they could have understood a nuclear device as weaponry it would have been categorized as an ordinance.

Here is a website with some excerpts, accounts and cases going back to colonial days just to show the varying opinions.

http://brainshavings.com/what-the-2nd-amendment-means-by-arms-iii.html

So IMO for anyone to say that conservatives are willing to compromise their 'conservatism' and violate the constitution by denying a citizen the right to own a nucear device is unfair.

The founding fathers had no knowledge of such devices and we have no way of knowing what they would have said about WMDs especially in light of the debates which followed the Second Amendment showing that there was ambiguity as to the meaning of defensive devices.

Personally and in my opinion, I don't believe it violates the constitution (Second Amendment) to deny my neighbor the right to own and keep on his property an atomic or hydrogen bomb.

IMO, The duty of the government to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare overrides an individuals right to kill millions of people at will and incinerate a twenty mile radius of destruction under the right of personal protection of life and property.

HankD