Why don't people recognize that, when the founders wrote freedom of press into law, they were clearly only talking about newspapers?

There was no way that they could have known technology would advance to a point where freedom of the press would involve big broadcasting networks.

Ive been hearing a very flawed argument that claims only the technology of the time applies to what the Constitution says so why can't we get rid of everything that technologically advanced past the year 1788?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Graylight · 51-55, F

What the framers did was write down a set of guiding principles that stood a chance at being adaptable to future concerns.

In this case, the right to bear arms was enacted as a peaceful protective measure until a standing army could be formed. They couldn't forsee ar-15s but very could foresee violence.

Likewise, they didn't know just how media would evolve, but they are very clear on 1st amendment limitations that have stood the test of time.

And these were men. Not gods, not fortune tellers, not imbued with any super powers. They were the best we had and the did the best they could.

MickRogers · 26-30, M

@Graylight The 2nd amendment didn't become irrelevant "as soon as a standing army was formed." The founders recognized the standing army in question was the exact thing they put the 2nd amendment in the constitution to prevent.

They just finished a war that lasted years fighting against a standing army, and they wanted to ensure people wouldn't have their ability to continue acquiring weapons incase it ever happened again. The Declaration, after all, says "When a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government."

MickRogers · 26-30, M

@Graylight For the record, I'm not even Pro-Constitution myself. Don't even support the 2nd Amendment, I find it to be inferior. I vastly prefer Karl Marx's "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." Since any attempt to disarm the workers (the ones who make civilization happen) is nothing more than an excuse for the state to control an even greater monopoly on violence.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@Graylight

the right to bear arms was enacted as a peaceful protective measure until a standing army could be formed.

Actually, I think it was a little more than that, which is why they couched it in terms of being a "well-regulated militia". It grew more, I believe, out of the history of the citizen Minutemen standing up to the oppression of the existing authoritarian government (the British) and their fear that individual states might have to do the same in the future. I believe what they had in mind is more like the National Guard we have today rather than a bunch of would-be anarchists running around playing with guns and calling themselves militia.

But I agree with your overall points.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@dancingtongue Well, I did leave out that they were used primarily to wage "Indian wars."

Early settlers were a little jumpy about the whole oppression thing, but bear in mind a good portion the colonists were settlers from France and Quebec, many of whom settled here for the King.

It's a rich and complex history that tomes have been written about. And the actual history is probably nothing we imagine. But I'm not sure we need all the guns. Some of 'em, but it seems like there's an overabundance.

MickRogers · 26-30, M

@dancingtongue

1) The white supremacists that carry around guns aren't "anarchists." I can see you slept through political science class since you can't even get your actual political terms correct. Anarchy is, by definition, against state oppression which is exclusive to what the right wing militias want.

These bootlickers are out in full force today, as evidenced by your comment.

2) The founders never thought that the 2nd would become "irrelevant" once a standing army came to being. If thats what they wanted, they could have just written "we need a standing army" as part of the 2nd amendment instead if they wanted to. Not to mention that the standing army of Britain was the one they were just trying to fight so hard against.

The term "regulated" also didnt mean the same thing as it does today. Back then, the term just meant in working order. A common phrase that was used back then was "that person has a well-regulated kitchen" for example. But that didnt mean they felt the government should be the one regulating how people are allowed to operate their kitchens.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@Graylight Over abundance in both numbers AND modern firepower. The Constitution does come out of a rich and complex history, and -- as someone else pointed out -- was a series of complex compromises in a pragmatic effort to find something that would work and could evolve. Which is why the literal interpretation approach is such a disservice to the men who framed the Constitution.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MickRogers

The white supremacists that carry around guns aren't "anarchists."

First, my comments weren't aimed solely at white supremacists but at the full range of self-described "militias" wandering around out there, the only common thread seeming to be self-entitlement to do whatever they want which includes white supremacists. Second, anarchy is the desire for the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, not just opposition to state oppression.