Republicans really do hate gay people

[Wiglaf]

At this point, for people to have an effective means of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government, they'd need to be able to buy large firebombs and biological weapons in bulk. Government has gotten too powerful to be contained by individuals with rifles.

So, why doesn't 'arms' mean 'large firebombs' and 'biological weapons' nowadays?

[rah]

What response do you have to someone who might say that, while 'the Right to bear arms' originally referred to weapons like rifles, now it should be interpreted to refer to water pistols?

First I'd probably call the person an idiot. (and if you think that's a valid comparison to this instance, I gave you more credit than I should have)
But if we had been discussing a more sensible drifting of the original designation I'd have been more open to it. Rational discussion over time does help modify opinions (despite any experiences here)

This debate didn't just start yesterday, it's been going on for a long time and I've yet to hear any real arguments in terms of harm. The stability argument just doesn't stand anymore. People hide behind it.

[Wiglaf]

Okay. If you say so.

The new standard for what centuries-old words mean is what rah thinks they mean after some 'rational discussion.' Got it.

[giblets]

At this point, for people to have an effective means of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government, they'd need to be able to buy large firebombs and biological weapons in bulk. Government has gotten too powerful to be contained by individuals with rifles.

So, why doesn't 'arms' mean 'large firebombs' and 'biological weapons' nowadays?

Maybe the right to bear arms shouldn't give domestic terrorists the means to wipe out our civilization?

[rah]

Okay. If you say so.

Yes, just another opinion. But at least my opinion that I think they deserve the right because it doesn't harm me requires no additional proof on my part. I think your opinion to deny the right because it harms you, does require some valid proof of what harm it causes you specifically.

[MrFun]

Except that I am pro gay marriage.

And I think that the argument from discrimination is stupid, harmful, and offensive when used to attack others.

It is just to allow you to hate on those who don't see things the same way as you.

JM

So white Southerners were not being bigoted by denying blacks the right to vote before the civil rights movement. It wasn't discrimination, because they just had a different opinion.

[Wiglaf]

When deciding what "cruel and unusual punishment" means should the Supreme Court go by what was considered acceptable in the 18th century?

Obviously, people in the 18th century were not familiar with things like lethal injection. Courts should refer to definitions of cruel and punishment that were around in the 18th century and that have persisted for generations. Otherwise, it will simply be up to each justice what he thinks of as 'cruel.' No society can be governed like that.

Does the Constitution prevent states from putting sodomites to death?

Yes.

Maybe the right to bear arms shouldn't give domestic terrorists the means to wipe out our civilization?

Why not? The Second Amendment gave people the right to have arms so that they could rise up and overthrow government. I'm just 'adapting it' to modern times by your standard.

[regexcellent]

Your "domestic terrorist" is Thomas Jefferson's liberator, and I'm not even joking. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to enable the violent overthrow of the federal government.

[rah]

So, why doesn't 'arms' mean 'large firebombs' and 'biological weapons' nowadays?

Do you really think that the founding fathers intended for the militia to have biological weapons available for use?

While I disagree, at least the discussions over automatic weapons isn't a stretch.

[Wiglaf]

I think they used the word "arms," meaning firearms, and that is the meaning we should stick with.

If you try to read willy-nilly into the founders' "intent," then, as regexcellent points out, you must allow people to have biobombs and things. In the 18th century, allowing people to have firearms gave them a very good chance of overthrowing their government.

[MrFun]

What if I think, as a matter of good public policy, our country's laws should treat definitions and centuries-old civil institutions with respect? Because I believe, if we do not treat them with respect, laws and even personal contracts might lose their intended meaning in front of an activist judge?

This definitional debate affects everyone.

President Lincoln and Republican Congressmen treated the centuries old tradition of slavery with so much DISRESPECT. For shame.

[Wiglaf]

You again?

No one changed the meaning of slavery. And it's constitutionally proscribed.

Go away.

[Elok]

The only downside is the crappier opportunities to party.

Community College is a terrible place to major in Business.

[MrFun]

Um, yes they did. President Lincoln and Republican Congressmen undid thousands of years of tradition.

Elok - I don't like x-posting.

[rah]

I think they used the word "arms," meaning firearms, and that is the meaning we should stick with.

If you try to read willy-nilly into the founders' "intent," then, as regexcellent points out, you must allow people to have biobombs and things. In the 18th century, allowing people to have firearms gave them a very good chance of overthrowing their government.

A good point, and since I'm not a JSC it's not my job to divine intent so I'll stop speculating there. Those with better credentials have determined that the rights to have WMDs isn't protected, so I guess I'll go along with that for now.