Re: Science Saturday: Taking the Plunge
Conservatives are in perpetual awe of the holy intentions of the Founding Fathers, and think the Constitution is this supremely moral document built on grand moral principles. (In fact, a bunch of lawyers and other over-educated rich people made a series of political compromises at the time: where does 3/5ths figure into the grand moral calculus, the "Great Compromise" which has given us the RIDICULOUSLY antiquated Senate).
A lot of people are clueless when it comes to the Bill of Rights, a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The anti-Federalists feared a tyrannical centralized government. At the time of the nation's founding, and Justice Thomas likes to point this out, we did have states with established churches. The First Amendment restricts only the FEDERAL govt. from establishing a national church. States could have their own official religions, restrict speech, and so on. The country underwent a second founding in 1865, which then started to become realized in the 20s and 30s with incorporation theory and cooperative federalism.
Putting everything into context, the Second Amendment IS intended to prevent domestic tyranny, but on the central/Washington D.C. level. Gun control people mention "well-regulated militia" and conservatives invariably cite "shall not be infringed," but the key phrase, I contend, is "necessary to the security of a Free State." People just pass over that like it means nothing.
But honestly, who gives a shit what the Founders believed? They could have explicitly said that we should be allowed to own any weapons we please. Fuck, they said we should be allowed to own slaves. It's this ridiculous ancestor-worship that rivals religious fundamentalism in stupidity.