mysteryman wrote:.......Is the Constitution a "living document" open to interpretation based on your beliefs,or does it mean exactly what it says,no more or no less?
I think that is the biggest question and the biggest debate facing the US today.
uh-huh. it encapsulates a lot of issues.
maybe the question is more accurately stated as "is interpretation based on the the realities of today and our likely future ? "
unbending "traditional" this or that may be comforting to some individuals, but i believe that a refusal to adapt and grow in response to the progress of time can only lead to national and cultural stagnation.
it just seems to me that america is at one of those big transition stages in our national development. some people like the idea, some don't. or as i said to my dad a while back, some people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. we actually agree on that one.
so, i guess my opinion is that in that way, you could say "personal beliefs" would dictate interpretation. i.e.; it's my personal belief that we should use common sense in weighing whether or not a particular piece of the constitution is more or less applicable today than when it was set down. or is it relevant at all ?
this example comes to mind;
2nd amendment. let's keep it simple and just call it "the right to arm bears". ohhh.. wait. sorry..
the right to bear arms
okay. when set down, america was a much younger nation. the federal government was looser. the military was skeletal, police departments all but non-existent, the pioneering was still into completely wild and dangerous areas.
so if you have no infrastructure in place to protect you from domestic or foriegn danger, it makes good sense to allow the public to keep arms in sufficient measure to meet the likely dangers. same with militias. not to mention, the abscence of the local piggly-wiggly store means if you want a steak, you'll need to go shoot something.
may be worth noting that the level of sophistication in rifle and sidearm was a hell of lot more primitive at the time. a blazing 2 or 3 rounds per minute!
today's reality is that 200+ years later,
federal government is more completely formed(maybe toooo completely.
)
the u.s. military, fully unleashed, can take any objective you point it at. in other words we are capable of assured mutual destruction if it were to come to it. hence the policy of detente.
police departments have grown in number, size, skill, technology and quality. there's no way no guarantee anyone absolute safety in the world (and never has been), but we aren't living in deadwood, either.
grocery stores, mini-marts and cosco are readily available. or or you can hold your nose and go to wal-mart.
so, as we can see, most of the things that originally made the 2nd so important have totally changed. so should the 2nd be dispensed of ?
i don't think so. common sense tells me that is unnecessarily drastic.
besides, i like my gun and don't feel like turning it in. that's personal belief creeping in. do i really need it? probably not. but i do like the idea that i can have around.
but common sense (and personal experience) tell me that while a gun is neither good or bad, the way that they get used is. i've met a lot of people that have no business being on the same block as any firearm. others, i'm quite comfortable being around when they are armed.
reconfiguring gun laws and some of the other changes that have been made reflect a better solution than saying "no guns" to me.
hunting ? fine. range work? cool by me. self protection around the ol' homestead ? no problema, amigo. those three things can be accomplished with a variety of pretty neat pieces ranging from small to heavy being allowable.
but does the guy across the street
really need a 50 cal ? naw, i just don't see it. same with ak's or machine pistols. just an accident waiting to happen. or a really violent crime. seems like a bad idea to allow the public the ability to out gun law enforcement on an individual basis. and it's not realistic to think that the citizenry could withstand assualt by the u.s. military if, god forbid, there was a military coup or wotnot..
if a person really feels the need to blow **** up, join the guard or active. seems like they could use ya these days....
so, ya see where i'm goin' here ? by using common sense, there's the possibility of interpreting the 2nd in a way that both satisfies it's original intent and still deals with reality of
our day to day world.
in general i lean more towards viewing the constitution to allow more than less freedom for all with the caveat that freedom doesn't cause any other citizen physical harm.
