| exdeath said: What does the internet, television, automobiles, computers, automatic weapons, etc have to do with basic ideological principles regarding individual liberty and limits on government power where individual rights take precedence over government and the then revolutionary idea that it is government that should be restricted, and not the people, with a Constitution explicitly stating what government can do instead of the other way around? The idea that liberty of the individual is sacred and absolute and already exists naturally, and that government does not exist to grant liberty but instead to protect it, ironically from the very government itself first and foremost, transcends all time and space and is not influenced by technology or human progress. Freedom of speech and press for example wasn't limited to just speaking or pens only but not printing presses. It made no mention of the means at all. It is far less tangible and wider scope than that the technological means available at any given point in time be it a pen or the internet. Right to bear arms = "every terrible implement of the soldier", for governed citizens to have parity (vgchartz loves this word) and deterence with any standing army or government force that could some day be used against the people, not just "duck hunting shotguns". It's about government not having monopoly on deadly force or the most efficient means to wield it, and again this is an idea that needs not specify any particular technology or era. etc. The majority of real flaws (slavery and womens rights) have already long been formally fixed. |
I addressed that question in an earlier post, and you highlighted my point with your closing statement: the original constitution was flawed, so it was eventually amended. The Founding Fathers knew that the scope of their awareness was limited, so they created the best contract they could with the nest information they had and provided for greater awareness to evovle the contract. There is a stark contrast between their world and ours, and people need to pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that amendments exist because things change. It is natural to evolve, and our laws should evolve along with us.
I think the rest of your post was excellently put, and I, too, have qualms with uninformed and context-less opinions driving conversations about law.
