You may be right! I may be crazy. But, it just may be a lunatic you're looking for.
Ooops. Hold on. I got carried away. I do heart Billy Joel so... I meant to stop at "you may be right." And, by that I do not mean that I think you ARE right. I mean, whotheheckknows what the Framers were doing? (BTW, this is the perfect example of the importance of using language responsibly. Dudes could have used TWO freakin' sentences to explain WTF they were talking about. But, instead, they had to be all fancy and VAGUE, which, if you haven't noticed, is kind of a big deal.)
Anywho, what I mean to say, my dearest PWTSARIRBA, is that I appreciate your view and love that you are strong in a very noble position. And, I get that a lot of the images and statements posted on Facebook by you and others are obviously ridiculously funny caricatures of the very complex debate. But, I just want to point out that there is an equally valid viewpoint to yours, which does not actually assert that the individual right provided for in the 2nd Amendment should be ignored, as your Obama cartoon suggests. Rather, it asserts that no such right exists; that the words simply do not say this. Your view is in the school of thought known as the “individual rights” theory ("IRT"), whereas the other view, which has to do with the power of the language, “A well-regulated Militia…,” is referred to with love as the “collective rights” theory ("CRT"). The IRT was pretty much the standard interpretation in the beginning of this amazing country of ours, while the need to protect against tyranny was a very real concern (haha--no, really--stop it--no jokes about Guantanamo, please). By around 1939ish, the culture had changed, and CRT was considered by the court of the land to be the correct interpretation. This was the case for many decades, until very recently (let's say 2008...hmmm...what else happened THEN??). One can surmise this is evidence of a culture/perspective shift in our society. But, that is for another ONE. Not I.
WHY, then, am I talking about HISTORY? Well, I'm pretty sure the idea here is to learn from our mistakes and to get this thing right. And, it also is fair to point out that, just like a lot of other parts of the Constitution (e.g., references to slaves being less than an entire human being), interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changes with the course of time. Not for you or for me, but for us as a society. It just does.
The only point I'm really trying to make is that you're being a tad ignorant and unnecessarily harsh. It seems so obvious to you that your interpretation is correct. This is the same position of the opposing viewpoint. You know what this reminds me of? This is totally like one of those optical illusion images where you can see either a young man or an old man, depending on how you look at the picture (see below). It is the same with language: it depends on where you put the emphasis. It is a valid and very important debate, to be sure. Of course there are crazies on both sides who misconstrue everything and perhaps have other agendas. But, my point is that reasonable people just as dedicated to preserving, honoring, and following the Constitution as you are, have a different interpretation. And, we may be right...
No comments:
Post a Comment