that's a job for Bill S. Preston, Esquire and Ted "Theodore" Logan

Until someone can build a time machine so Uncle George and Uncle Thomas travel to the present and kick king barry's ass and tell the people exactly what they meant,

Shall not be infringed will never be interpreted literally

This is the first of this kind of discussion I have ever read online... LOL, of course not.

I just want to propose the following as a guideline which I have been using myself to think of this (and other similarly complex) topics.

Let's use the 1A as an example (same as the other As):

WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS TO BE SO IMPORTANT AS TO BE EXPRESSLY ENUMERATED OUT? For 1A, WHAT IS THE REASON WHY WE MUST ALLOW PEOPLE TO SAY/COMMUNICATE STUFF?

Then just see whatever "changes" made subsequent, will compromise the EFFECTIVENESS of the 1A to serve the ORIGINAL MAIN PURPOSE of its creation. I think that would be the acid test, so to speak.

The whole concept is dynamic, and the dead old folks who created this great country cannot be expected to have literally put everything in writing and conceived of everything in the future.

Having said all this, damn, I am pessimistic still because the electorate is not educated enough about these complex issues.

One man's "common sense gun control" is another man's tyranny.

We need common sense thug control. So called "career criminals" should never be released. It's no mystery what someone who has committed 10 or 20 crimes is going to do when they get out of jail.

I need a "None of the above", or "Words taken out of context have a variety of meanings. so this is open to interpretation."

What I mean is, when you ask a lawyer what the word "shall" means, he will tell you it is an imperative.  It is much stronger than "may".  Now, if we can go back in time and walk around 1775 America, I bet the way people spoke, and the words people used, were quite different.  I bet many people used "shall" in everyday conversation but with more the connotation of "will", not "must".  Over time, the words "will" and "shall" became synonymous in American conversational English.  It is only because courts defined the legal interpretation of certain words that we believe these terms to hold some absolute meaning. 

Language is something that has always fascinated me.  Personally, I am convinced that language is the largest barrier to understanding ever conceived.  But it's the best thing we've got. 

To say "I don't know how those old guys meant to use the words" is something of an excuse.  There's plenty of material written by those old guys that you can read and gain a better understanding of the contemporary language.  And there are plenty of folks who have written extensively on that subject.  Of course, that means taking the time to do the research, which I acknowledge not everyone is able or willing to do.

So, then, if you're not willing to use the language of the document, then use your own!  It's a complex issue already, no need to be afraid of further muddying the waters!

One man's "common sense gun control" is another man's tyranny.

We need common sense thug control. So called "career criminals" should never be released. It's no mystery what someone who has committed 10 or 20 crimes is going to do when they get out of jail.

Agree. There is also a case now where some of most perverted convicts are suing for $10 million because they were not treated correctly, something like that. F'ed up.

Language is something that has always fascinated me.  Personally, I am convinced that language is the largest barrier to understanding ever conceived.  But it's the best thing we've got. 

To say "I don't know how those old guys meant to use the words" is something of an excuse.  There's plenty of material written by those old guys that you can read and gain a better understanding of the contemporary language.  And there are plenty of folks who have written extensively on that subject.  Of course, that means taking the time to do the research, which I acknowledge not everyone is able or willing to do.

So, then, if you're not willing to use the language of the document, then use your own!  It's a complex issue already, no need to be afraid of further muddying the waters!

Language is where the first battleground is. Orwell basically foresaw all this and warned us. It's pretty remarkable (or maybe not) that we got the warning so many decades ago and STILL things are coming to pass.

 

Personally, I feel the prison system should be like a Gulag.

I understand that there are some people that are false accused and sentenced, but I do not feel jail should be a luxury vacation on the taxpayers bill. Prison needs to be old school, with guys crushing rocks everyday with a small hammer, with basic necessities and food that will enough adequate nutrition to keep you alive. The problem is that career criminals know that prison really isn't that bad, which is a major factor as to why the never reform.

And if the crime is severe, or the person is a repeat offender, the penalty should be death, with none of these drawn out appeals. Of course, the American people would need to grow a pair and stop being so damn sensitive for this to happen.

Agree. Some people just need to be put down like they do with nuisance bears or aligators. It becomes blatantly obvious when someone is just plain no good. You don't get wrongfully convicted of 3 crimes on a row.

This is the first of this kind of discussion I have ever read online... LOL, of course not.

I just want to propose the following as a guideline which I have been using myself to think of this (and other similarly complex) topics.

Let's use the 1A as an example (same as the other As):

WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS TO BE SO IMPORTANT AS TO BE EXPRESSLY ENUMERATED OUT? For 1A, WHAT IS THE REASON WHY WE MUST ALLOW PEOPLE TO SAY/COMMUNICATE STUFF?

Then just see whatever "changes" made subsequent, will compromise the EFFECTIVENESS of the 1A to serve the ORIGINAL MAIN PURPOSE of its creation. I think that would be the acid test, so to speak.

The whole concept is dynamic, and the dead old folks who created this great country cannot be expected to have literally put everything in writing and conceived of everything in the future.

Having said all this, damn, I am pessimistic still because the electorate is not educated enough about these complex issues.

I agree that the Founders were incapable of predicting everything that would happen, but the words they put on paper should be interpreted literally.  Shall not be infringed.  Disallowing the citizenry from owning RPGs and M-243s is an infringement.  If we decide that the modern era's "arms" are too dangerous and the right to bear them needs to be infringed, that's what the Constitutional Amendment process is for.  It would be easy enough to add an Amendment which states, "The definition of arms, for the purpose of this document, shall not include fully-automatic weapons, explosive devices, silencers, or rifles with bbls under 16 inches."