Not such a "liberal" notion given the times it was written... If you didn't hunt, you may starve.I always thought it was so the government couldn't oppress the citizens via firepower. But that doesn't matter. We have the right to keep and bear arms, today.
Adding the right to have nukes would be an increase in personal rights.
Moreover, I don't give a solid rat's ass what the "framers" foresaw if you try and tell me that it's good for a civilized society to walk around with holsters and ouzi's...When they were first introduced, tommy guns were available to ANYONE. You could even get them via mailorder.
We now have fewer rights than we did then (regarding gun ownership).
What did we get when we lost those rights?
And in the same liberal spirit, given the First Amendment, I should be free to pray anywhere I please, including a public school.And you can. Try it.
And I should be free to pray to whatever I want to in public.And you can. Try it.
I should be free to say fuck on TV and to yell "fire" in a crowded theater."Fuck" on HBO (etc) and "fire" if there is, in fact, a fire that people need to be warned of. They only get annoyed when you cause a panic.
Read my post again. Notice the part about Society's rights? Yelling "fire" when there isn't one can cause a panic which infringes upon society's rights.
We, as a society, either need to encase this precious document in glass and start praying to it, or to continue to edit/repeal/repent or do whatever is in "we the people's" power to make it apply to the needs of the current century/era.And it doesn't apply how? I don't see anything that needs to be changed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/etc. New laws can handle new technologies easier than risking the basis of our government.
We need to decide in a binary fashion (;-) - IS IT STATIC AND SACRED, OR IS IT A STARTING POINT... I think a lot of arguments could be stopped before they got started if we'd just determine this.I think most people see it as a starting point. But when it is a starting point, do you move forward or backward? Do you add rights or do you remove rights?
Thanks for your support. I think it would be easier to discuss some of these issues if we can look at them one a rights/responsibilities and individual/society/whatever continuum.
In fact, it then becomes a question of what specific responsibilities you are willing to accept for specific rights (both individual and societal).
For a specific instance, gun control.
We can move beyond "gun control is Fascist!" or "gun control saves children!"
Instead, we can look at what responsibilities gun ownership entails for the individual and what society's rights/responsibilities are regarding gun owning individuals.