@McGentrix,
Quote:They obviously didn't have the internet in mind so the govt should obviously be able to curtail both freedom of speech and press on thevinternet, right?
I suppose someone could try to make that argument but it would be hard to see why the profusion of free speech and free press over the web would change the underlying purpose of the 1st Amendment. More words moving around faster and distributed more widely — it's still just words and ideas (and money, thanks to Citizens United). It would be difficult to argue that the founders only intended a certain quantity of free speech; it doesn't make sense.
Whatever the merits of 2nd Amendment at the time it was written — oralloy will be sure to correct me — I believe it was the first time that the armed citizen militia was recognized in a written constitution and it reflected the hope that the new country could avoid having to man and maintain a standing army.
Quote:Generally, where modern constitutions refer to arms at all, the purpose is "to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them".[2] Constitutions which historically guaranteed a right to bear arms are those of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua and the United States of America.[4] Nearly all of Latin American examples were modeled on that of the United States.[3] At present, out of the world’s nearly 200 constitutions, three still include a right to bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States; of these three, only the last does not include explicit restrictive conditions.[2
wiki
Given the wording of the amendment I find it difficult to believe that the founders had in mind a citizenry armed with the latest military firearms holed up in their homes waiting for some hapless intruder to open the door. I know, you'll ask who made me a constitutional authority. So I'll let Justice Stevens make the point:
Quote:The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
wiki
This was from the Heller decision, you knew that, and we also know that Stevens was in the minority. But when a decision like this is decided in a 5-4 vote in a highly politicized atmosphere, it gives one reason to believe that the decision could be overturned in the future by a 5-4 (or greater) majority. It
could happen.
The dissenters in Heller were not radicals or authoritarians bent on suppressing freedom. They just held a different interpretation which had been in the judicial mainstream for years.
Quote:When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function ... If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.[219]
- Justice Ginsburg
op cit
And even under the currently recognized right as an issue of "self-defense" it's hard to see why some 75 year old grandmother in a crack-infested housing project needs an AK 47 and a banana clip or a 50 caliber sniper rifle. Just sayin', you know?
