Originally posted by dave
I like some of your post sir, but isn't that the very arguement used by those who say the 2nd Admendment is out dated and of no use to "modern" man?
I, by no means, think the Constitution is a "dead" document, but I do believe we should give a great deal of thought to what the framers intended when writting it. Just as the 1st isn't, and shouldn't be, diminnished by the advent of technology and "progress", neither should the the 2nd. Yet that is the very reason some give for wanting it dismissed or redefining it's meaning.
The fact remains that if the constitution meant only and precisely what the signers thought it meant, it wouldn't cover all sorts of important things. That's simply not a workable position. Besides that, I believe we could prove that the signers already disagreed on what some things meant, and other things we couldn't find conslusive evidence of exactly what they meant. Any way you look at it, constitutional literalism is
unworkable.
People will, of course, attempt to use any argument they can find to further their aims. I'm not prepared to abandon every useful idea every time somebody finds a way to make an argument I don't like with it. I'll only abandon them in the face of mounds of evidence and a good deal of thought.
In the case of the second amendment, I see the situation as simple in some ways and complex in others. It's nonsense to suggest that the 2A was only meant to protect muzzle-loading weapons, for example.
I think that, indeed, what a judge should do is give considerable thought to what was intended, and then follow up on that intention even if they don't like it. If significant
changes are needed, that should be left to the mechanism outlined in the constitution. I understand how it's rarely possible for people with strong opinions, trained in finding strange arguments to support the conclusions they favor, to hold themselves back when they see a chance to do a good deed for the country, though.