Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
I did read the books. I dont think that everything from 237 years ago is completely relevant for todays very different world. That's not a "better" example, IMHO.
As wise as they were, the founding fathers who composed the constitution and amendments were humans, and fallible. Not perfect.
I dont believe it's disrespectful to suggest that they could not have been expected to possibly predict the kind of world we live in today. Change to society accelerates with time.
In fact, I would suggest that is irrational or illogical to always fall back on the "but the constitution says x, and that cannot be questioned, it shall remain completely relevant for all enternity". I'm not saying flippantly discard it, but I am saying it makes sense to pause and ask "does this still make sense today; and if not, then why continue to cling to it blindly?" That's not treason, it's refusing to mindlessly become an unquestioning slave to dogma.
The point I was trying to make was that even with the 2nd amendment, clearly it provided no deterrent whatsoever to discourage the government from doing oppressive/bad things to it's citizens. 1776 it was not.
But things change. 1942 to 2001 was only 59 years, not 200, and yet what we did NOT see was a repeat of the pearl harbor era internment camps pop-up, (only this time for arabs after sep 11). If society hadnt changed in 59 years, then there would have been such camps, or at least serious public discussion of creating such camps, even if the idea never materialized. That didnt happen.
You're simply discarding data or incidents that don't fit your viewpoint. 59 years ago is different than 200, etc. Those are excuses, not real points. I don't think anyone is clinging to legislation blindly but before we allow people to butcher the constitution and change laws blindly, we'd like to know why, and what it accomplishes. So far, EVERYONE in this thread agrees that 10 bullets to 7 bullets does absolutely nothing. So why pass the legislation? Just to make liberals like you feel good? That's what the politicians think.
All I ask is for you to answer the following question honestly.
If Manzanar were expanded to encompass the entire state of California and it's 30,000,000 citizens, do you think it would be easier to accomplish with an armed populace, or unarmed?