Journal jlechem's Journal: Living Constitution 2
So I'm listening to NPR (liberal junkie radio I know) and they are talking about gun control. I learned a few things about the history of gun control in country that were quite fascinating. However one of the interesting points he brought up was about historical context. The 2nd amendment was written a long time ago and is it still relevant today the exact way it was written then. He brought up an interesting idea would you want an 18th century dentist working on your teeth today? I sure as hell wouldn't. Now think do you want an 18th century document dominating your life today? While not as clear cut as the dentist issue it brings up an interesting point. I think yes and no. But does that mean the entire document should never change? I think the Constitution is a living document. The founding fathers crafted it to be flexible and pertinent to their times but allowed for changes to be made. As time passes ideas in the 18th century no longer apply to people in the 19th, 20th, and centuries beyond. Ideals espoused need to be re-examined to see how they fit into today's society.
I have been on the fence post on this issue for a while but I have come to the conclusion that the living document idea is the best one. If the Constitution could never change ideas that were accepted in the past get forced on future generations. And who is to say those ideas are the correct fit for that generation?
I have been on the fence post on this issue for a while but I have come to the conclusion that the living document idea is the best one. If the Constitution could never change ideas that were accepted in the past get forced on future generations. And who is to say those ideas are the correct fit for that generation?
I dont think the issue is whether or not (Score:2)
However that doesnt really have any bearing on gun control. Currently, the right to bear arms IS guaranteed by the constitution. There is nothing preventing an amendment from changing that. However, until that happens (and, personally, I am a believer in the right to bear arms despite not being a gun owner myself), that IS a right.
Now, should there be an amendment cancelling out the 2nd? That is a much larger issue. In c
Re:I dont think the issue is whether or not (Score:2)
The whole thing was a big transition. The post wasn't meant to talk about gun control but more about the flexibility of the big C itself. I have been putting some thought into the whole issue of how I feel about interpreting the constitution. Should it be interpreted as written by the founders or should today's standards and ideals be used as well. Of course by nature amendments allow changes in the document. I guess my rambling thoughts were more focused on how t