Monkeyleg
Member.
Comparing the status of the First Amendment to the status of the Second Amendment is a specious argument.
Both have beent trampled, by Campaign Finance Reform (federal and local), arbitrary standards on what constitutes pornography, and other First Amendment cases.
The Second has been trampled because we haven't had a Supreme Court in a century that would rule in our favor.
And I sure wouldn't want to bring a case before the SC based upon Second Amendment grounds right now.
As so many have pointed out, the SC's decision in Roe vs. Wade was handed down in a distinctly different period: it was handed down at what may have been the zenith of the feminist movement's power; it was handed down just a few years after the release of "The Pill," and it was handed down after a generation like mine embraced the idea of sex without consequences.
Agree or disagree with any of the above-mentioned cultural shifts, but you can't deny that those shifts had an impact on the SC.
There is no major cultural shift toward a pure view of the Second Amendment. Any such view is history, something to be read about and studied by historians absorbed by pre-WWI history.
Nor is there any shift toward viewing any of the other amendments to the Constitution as "pure."
The push for shall-issue concealed carry nationwide has less to do with giving citizens the right to carry (on average, only 2% or so of state populations get permits), and more to do with making the idea of armed citizens acceptable to the rest of the populace.
This is progress. Slow, incremental progress.
Do I expect to see the full-auto restrictions from the FOPA of 1986 struck down? Not in my lifetime. But maybe in someone else's.
There are a lot of people here on THR who weren't "of age" when the fight over Evil Black Rifles began. I've been meaning to go to the archives at the city library to print out a copy of an op-ed piece from 1989. When and if I get that chance, I think a lot of people will understand the kind of pressure we faced.
Both have beent trampled, by Campaign Finance Reform (federal and local), arbitrary standards on what constitutes pornography, and other First Amendment cases.
The Second has been trampled because we haven't had a Supreme Court in a century that would rule in our favor.
And I sure wouldn't want to bring a case before the SC based upon Second Amendment grounds right now.
As so many have pointed out, the SC's decision in Roe vs. Wade was handed down in a distinctly different period: it was handed down at what may have been the zenith of the feminist movement's power; it was handed down just a few years after the release of "The Pill," and it was handed down after a generation like mine embraced the idea of sex without consequences.
Agree or disagree with any of the above-mentioned cultural shifts, but you can't deny that those shifts had an impact on the SC.
There is no major cultural shift toward a pure view of the Second Amendment. Any such view is history, something to be read about and studied by historians absorbed by pre-WWI history.
Nor is there any shift toward viewing any of the other amendments to the Constitution as "pure."
The push for shall-issue concealed carry nationwide has less to do with giving citizens the right to carry (on average, only 2% or so of state populations get permits), and more to do with making the idea of armed citizens acceptable to the rest of the populace.
This is progress. Slow, incremental progress.
Do I expect to see the full-auto restrictions from the FOPA of 1986 struck down? Not in my lifetime. But maybe in someone else's.
There are a lot of people here on THR who weren't "of age" when the fight over Evil Black Rifles began. I've been meaning to go to the archives at the city library to print out a copy of an op-ed piece from 1989. When and if I get that chance, I think a lot of people will understand the kind of pressure we faced.
