Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Army briefing "Americans are threat"


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#181    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,149 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:25 PM

 aquatus1, on 10 November 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

To read something from 200 years ago, by necessity, requires interpretation to modern day usage.  

only if you want to make it sound diferent to attach new meaning.

i can read consistution in language written 200 years ago just fine.

also, even after ussc interpretation of second amendment it still has same basic meaning as it did 200 years ago.

the only reason i see someone wants to "reread" , and "reinterpret" our rights, is to slowly take them away inch by inch. and make it look like it was written in there.

nice try but no cigar.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#182    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,644 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2013 - 10:03 PM

 aztek, on 12 November 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

only if you want to make it sound diferent to attach new meaning.

That's just it, Aztek.  You don't have to want to make it sound different.  If a language changes, if words no longer mean what they meant, if context now implies something different than it did two centuries ago, then what was written will sound different and it will have new meaning.  You have little do with it.  It is society itself that changes the language and context.  The only way the above sentence would be true is if the language in a society stayed static for 200 years.

Quote

i can read consistution in language written 200 years ago just fine.

Sure, you can read it.  You just cannot interpret it correctly, not without the background within which it was written.  Whether or not your interpretation is correct is beside the point; you don't get credit for guessing correctly.

Quote

also, even after ussc interpretation of second amendment it still has same basic meaning as it did 200 years ago.

Yes, the same "basic" meaning.  Which means that somewhere along the line, it was recognized that anything more complex than that would have to be interpreted in regards to constitutionality.  And wow!  Has it ever!

Back in the late 1800, common knowledge was that only the federal government was restricted by the 2nd amendment.  States could, and on occasion did, take away the right to bear arms when the local militia did not show an acceptable level of organization for a militia.  The right to bear arms wasn't really a constitutional issue (the Supreme Court court ruled at the time that the right to bear arms was neither granted nor required by Constitution).  This became something of a sticking point, with more and more individuals demanding to keep their guns even if they weren't part of a well regulated militia (or even well regulated on a more psychological basis).  The people demanded an interpretation, and eventually, the Supreme Court had to hand down the decree that any arm you were going to bear had to have a "reasonable" relationship with both defense of the country (i.e. militia) and daily use; this is the same interpretation that some people use today to argue that a semi-automatic military-style rifle is reasonable because it serves both as a weapon against invasion and for squirrel-hunting.  That sort of thing led the States to demand their own interpretation, since they were going to be the ones having to deal with the guys seeing enemies of the state around every corner, and the Supreme Court had to determine just how far a state's right went before it bumped into the federal right.  Not too long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment will apply to individuals, which made things harder for the states, to which the Supreme Court recently has had to defend that decision.

Yes, that's right.  Currently, it is the federal government fighting the states to not have greater control over personal weapon ownership.

Why all this?  Why, for that matter, have an entire branch of the government established for the sole purpose of determining whether or not a given bill is considered constitutional?

Because the Constitution is, at its heart, a very simple document, designed to be changed and yes, interpreted, by the people who had the education to know that, sooner or later, interpretation would be required, just as they had had to interpret the laws and rules from England to properly modify and apply them to the New World.

Quote

the only reason i see someone wants to "reread" , and "reinterpret" our rights, is to slowly take them away inch by inch. and make it look like it was written in there.

Well, don't be so close-minded then.  Not only are ideas dependent on the language they are expressed in, they are also utterly dependent on the era they were expressed.  This is not a conspiracy.  It's life.

In 1851 (the same year the Supreme Court was declaring the general irrelevance of the Constitution in regards to bearing arms), a reporter wrote an article on the Crystal Palace, a beautiful and innovative engineering design made of entirely of glass and iron for the World Fair.  He described it as "Terrible and Awful!". Those where the only words that he could think of that would do justice to it.

If ideas were independent of the language they were expressed in, we would have no choice but to conclude that this reporter had a very, very low opinion of the Crystal Palace.  It has barely been 150 years, after all!  How much could language change in that time?

Well, it can do a complete 180.  Back in the 1800's, "awful" meant "awesome" (and not in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle way either) and "terrible" meant "incredible".  That is just one example of a mere 150 years within one single language.

Quote

nice try but no cigar.

That dismissal would have more impact if you had actually brought something to the table that was a little more impressive than your mere declaration that you are correct and anyone who doesn't agree is probably trying to take over the country.

Edited by aquatus1, 12 November 2013 - 10:06 PM.


#183    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 November 2013 - 02:06 PM

Good post Aquatus.

Reminds me of Orwell's point: If thought corrupts language, then language can also corrupt thought.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users