Progressives Misread The Constitution

Some guy in America.

I think she gets this spot on. The backward projection applied by such people is astoundingly stupid and illogical. They break the one of the most important laws of history: Don't project contemporary thoughts onto the past.

They fail, in my view, to contextualize. No, I don't consider "those were different, more simpler times" as contextualizing. It's vapid nonsense. I don't know about you folks reading this article, but I don't see a whole lot of difference between how politics - including power politics in international affairs - worked then as it does now. There's a thin, long linear common thread linking all epochs and eras on such matters. There are, surely, differences that mark a particular moment of course, but the over arching arc is the same in any age.

For example, it's irrelevant how weapons would evolve over time. That they couldn't conceive of a bazooka doesn't negate the theory of the right to bear arms. There's a certain arrogance in this position. Here's why. It implies there was no advancement in science and technology. In order for this line of logic to function, it has to presume that the evolution of weapons technology is not relative but static. Which, when one ponders it, makes sense given the static thinking of such assertions.

By the time the Founding Fathers wrote the amendments, there were sufficient examples for them to draw upon when it comes to how man can devise ruthless killing machines.

They understood. They understood very well. Better than you can imagine. This is why the amendments are brilliant in its wording. It really isn't that hard to understand the spirit of their positions. They were conservative men in a liberal age. That is, they were Enlightenment philosophers who believed in the authority of God.

As such, they fall in line with classical liberal thought. Not the contemporary progressive version that pompously seeks to reword, rework or even reinvent The Constitution in its own image.

I don't think it's helpful or proper to try and surmise along the lines of 'they never meant to' or 'they could never know' because, as the video shows, it leaves itself open to all sorts of problems.

And so it is with the 2nd amendment. The point is not about 'assault weapons' and whether anyone 'needs' one. In a similar vein, one can ask why does anyone need  big house? Or, as Obama thinks, at some point you make enough money. Why does anyone need anything I don't think they need!?

The point is, and this demands abstract thought, the the intention of the Framers wasn't to offload total security onto the state. The whole point of The Constitution was to limit government; not expand it. In this manner, it is perfectly reasonable, perhaps even moral, for a man to bear arms for how can he defend himself against one of humanity's greatest themes: Tyranny.

Modern minds may not appreciate this, seeing how we've offloaded so many of our personal liberties to the state, but tyranny comes in many forms. The Framers listened to history. They appreciated its cadence and took it for what it was.

We don't. We think we do but ours is a superficial grasp mostly hinged on creating a narrative to suit our political colors.

The Framers weren't afraid of guns.

They were afraid of man's remarkable talent of inflicting pain and imposing tyranny.

Modern progressives are too focused on a piece of metal (a finite object for a most predictable philosophy) thus subjecting them to a confiscatory disposition that only serves to erode liberties. They should shift their thought process more into the abstract (infinite) and put more faith in the liberty of man.