Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 2
Topic: Pro Gun, Pro Life (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132231
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 10:26am | IP Logged | 1  

In the way we have come to interpret the Second Amendment we see a pattern very similar to the expansion of the First Amendment. There, a rule originally meant to protect the printing press and someone literally speaking to a gathering of people, has been broadened to include all manner of means of communication, and their use, that could not have been imagined by the Founding Fathers. (Thus we get rap lyrics endorsing the brutalization of women being seen as protected under "Free Speech." One wonders where these interpretations were in the 1950s, when Fredrick Werthan was blaming comic books for all of society's ills.)

So it has been with the Second Amendment, as a couple of centuries of calculated misreading of a document created in a specific time and circumstance had smeared the rules in ways the Founding Fathers could not have intended.

So, enjoy your guns, assholes. Cuz from where I sit, every time someone is murdered you are as complicit as if you pulled the trigger yourself.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Craig Markley
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3969
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 11:19am | IP Logged | 2  

OT but JB's response regarding what the Founding Fathers (when did we start capitalizing that?) intended regarding the First Amendment reminded me of Frank Zappa's rebuttal to John Lofton about that same issue.

Zappa's epic response

Edited by Craig Markley on 28 October 2016 at 11:21am
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132231
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 11:28am | IP Logged | 3  

Not so much an "epic" response as that of someone pushing the rules beyond anything the Founding Fathers could have foreseen. The "free speech" they sought to protect was, as noted, literally that: someone addressing a crowd. If Zappa wanted the protection of the Amendment as stated, then he needed to stop making records and perform all his concerts without microphones.

The Founding Fathers did not pretend to be soothsayers.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 11:32am | IP Logged | 4  

The Founding Fathers did not pretend to be soothsayers.

***

Someone, possibly Larry King, did say that certain Second Amendment advocates would be happy to carry around atomic bombs if possible (not that anyone sane would want to), but he did argue that there are those who would use the Second Amendment to do just that. Thankfully, it won't be possible, but I can see the point he was making.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132231
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 11:50am | IP Logged | 5  

Some gun fetishist use the Second Amendment to justify owning tanks.

It's the "right to bear arms," idiots. Not the right to have arms bear you!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7480
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 1:10pm | IP Logged | 6  

What becomes frustrating is the absolute unwillingness of some gun owners to accept *any* regulation. Yes, bearing arms is a right, upheld by the Supreme Court. But no right is immune to restriction. You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot exempt yourself from a routine police stop on the grounds that it is "unreasonable search and seizure."

The Founders did not foresee what we would make of our nation and its fundamental documents. I think they might be mildly surprised we've lasted this long. But as a society, we have to do better than shrugging and saying that mass murders are a price we must pay so that some can own as many guns as they like without any check or balance.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132231
Posted: 28 October 2016 at 1:28pm | IP Logged | 7  

Yes, bearing arms is a right, upheld by the Supreme Court.

•••

But the Supreme Court were WRONG. They granted a broad, general interpretation to a rule created in, and applying to, a specific circumstance. The Second Amendment granted the "right to bear arms" under the prevailing conditions of the time. It specified the need for "a well regulated militia" in protecting the "security of a free state." That circumstance has not been extant for more than 100 years.

Back to Top profile | search
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

<< Prev Page of 2
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login