They are both part of the Bill of Rights. And the1st Amendment's meaning has been disputed hotly recently over the question of political advertising. Further the rise of electronic surveillance has called into question what type of searches really require a warrant as prescribed in an amendment...
Possibly but I'm wary of that idea. Couldn't you say the same thing about the 1st amendment or the 4th amendment? The 3rd amendment is almost never used today. Should we repeal it? A lot of federal legislation is intended to be explicit and legally precise and still ends up being complex and...
There have been a lot of books devoted to these and related questions. I don't have the full answer of course. But from my reading of history causes include the Federal victory in the Civil War, the rise of American industrial power in the last half of the 19th century, the US victory in the...
So do you think that fear that a large standing army gives the Federal government too much power and makes it more prone to tyranny is anachronistic?
Do you think that the idea of maintaining a much smaller regular army relative to the size of the population the way say Germany does now is...
I'm telling you what I think the framers meant. I don't think they said we have collective rights vs. individual rights. I think they said we have Federal authority and the rights of states and individuals.
In the past it was like Jury Service, when the militia were paid it was not a large amount, because they were performing a civic duty. Frequently they weren't paid.
Another thing that would be made possible by a revived, universal militia system is a large reduction in the size and cost of the...
You didn't ask me of course, but I think it was meant to refer to a right of both the people as individuals and the people as citizens of the separate states.
I can understand why people today feel that way. But consider this: in the present day there is much more emphasis placed on rights without attendant responsibilities than was probably the case in 1791. I believe that a breakdown in Americans' sense of community and civic responsibility has...
What I think was originally intended was for citizens who served in the militia to be able to privately purchase effective military small arms. If the standing militia was revived today, at the very least I think that militiamen would have to be allowed to own true assault rifles with burst...
In 1791, an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that there were never appropriate circumstances to maintain a standing army large enough to obviate the need for militia and the original intent of the constitution reflected that. How was it decided to depart so radically from that intent...
Just speaking of the original intent of the 2d Amendment, one country that actually invaded American soil not long after the ratification of the Second Amendment was Britain. Among other things, British troops burned the White House and attacked New Orleans. And in both campaigns, they faced off...
The only thing I would question about what you are saying here is the use of the word "collectivist." I think that's a purely modern term that implies a dichotomy between individual and states rights that I don't believe the framers would have recognized. They may have seen a distinction between...
I meant that the Second Amendment IS definable and that it is therefore possible to assess its relevance to the present day. And when I do that, I do find ways in which it is still relevant, one of them being civic responsibility and another being national defense.
I get the impression that most defenders of the Second Amendment today believe as you evidently do that the main purpose of bearing arms is for individuals acting alone to defend themselves against an attack by the government. And that may be a reasonable view of the best purpose of firearms...
I probably should have said something about each person’s experience or perception of the Tao, but both concepts are probably less than ideal to describe the idea.