-CraZed- said:
Has not the definition of speech changed? Or what is private vs. not private? People always devolve the discussion to muskets and black powder (another poster above you) etc. so I guess free speech advocates are defending only the printing press then? Or search and seizure limited to just paper? These rights don't change. They never have. Only the people have changed and how they have chosen to apply them. Every single one of the amendments are as they are. The verbage has not changed and they are not technically in any order of precedence or importance per se but if one was to conclude as much then the 2nd Amendment would be *gasp* second only to the right to free speech and the open practice of one's religion. |
Think of the purpose of those amendments. Each one serves a certain purpose and has always served that purpose. Typically that purpose is to protect the base rights of citizens. Only a few have actually changed in a noticable way to the point where they may need to be looked at. There is no reason to re-examine freedom of religion or the right of people to peacefully assemble or the 3-7 amendments or the 9-10 amendments.
This leaves a few things open for discussion:
-Freedom of the Press
-Right to Bear Arms
-8th Amendment
The press has changed and very much so as you have stated. Things are no longer only print media and information is much more widespread than before. How should this affect the press? Well the purpose of this part of the first amendment was to eliminate government censorship of the media and allow them to print whatever stories they want. Therefore, these rights should be protected. However, as someone said above, knowingly printing false stories is something that I believe a dialogue should be opened up about. While it is technically within the press' rights to print false stories, I think this is something that should be discussed as I believe it is easy to see why this could harm the country. I am not saying that we should throw laws in right now, I am just saying it should be discussed, all parties should make their case, and an informed democratic consensus should be reached.
The 8th Amendment is very loosely worded and for that reason, multiple supreme court cases were conducted on the issue to set a more specific grounds for this amendment. More concrete guidelines were necessary and therefore more concrete guidelines were implemented.
Like how the press has changed, so has weapons technology. "Arms" have changed considerably from the time this amendment was implemented and for that reason, I believe that it should be reevaluated. The definition of "Arms" is as follows: "A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems." Do you honestly believe that there should be no restrictions to these in the USA? In fact, there are already plenty of restrictions as to which specific arms are allowed and which are not. If you choose to take the amendment at its base worth as you claim, then are we not already infringing on American's rights by not allowing them to possess any and all forms of weaponry?
Lets go back to the purpose of this amendment, which is actually stated in the amendment: "A well regulated Militia" in addition to self protection. Okay, so what weapons should a militia have in order to fulfill its purpose? Well what is a militia's purpose? According to the definitions the United States gives, a Militia is both the state's "Army" (which possesses weapons for a variety of purposes and is not linked to personal freedoms), as well as the reserves which is simply every able bodied man of a certain age. What is the purpose of the latter? To serve in the case of a draft, so they do not need weapons for personal means.
The second purpose which I stated is self protection. Under any normal circumstances, a light firearm should be acceptable for protection. This is of course up for debate, but barring very extreme and unheard of circumstances heavy weapons are unneccesary. Therefore, to hold true to the purpose of the amendment, as well as maintain a maximum level of security alongside a maximum level of freedom, restrictions should be put in place to regulate what weapons are acceptable.
