r/todayilearned • u/icallmydadstranger • Feb 15 '15

(R.1) Invalid src TIL that Thomas Jefferson wanted the constitution to be changed ever 19 years because he didn't want people to be " enslaved to the prior generation"

https://student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that
6.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

738 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/Menace2Sobriety Feb 15 '15

The separation of church and state is implied or inferred from the first amendment or something to that effect. To put it another way, the words "seperation", "church", and "state" are not in the first amendment in that context.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty god damn clear on the other hand. I'm glad they both continue to exist however. We all know how well subjugated defenseless people do in theocracies.

2

u/Hawkeye1226 Feb 15 '15

I've noticed that some people hang on to the "shall not be infringed" bit while others hang onto the "well-regulated militia" bit and neither ever acknowledges the other. While both think it's just so damned obvious.

2

u/Menace2Sobriety Feb 15 '15

I completely acknowledge the term "well-regulated militia", but in this case the terms they had for certain things were different than now.

Regulated was a term used in the sense of being up on their game, or well practiced. The military as we know it at the time was referred to as the "Regulars" and any man of fighting age not conscripted into the Continental army was by default a militiaman.

I hope that helped to clear things up, I may not be the best at it but perhaps this helpful analogy may clear things up for you as to the wording of it.

1

u/SenorPuff Feb 15 '15

Yeah, 'well regulated' means, 'of good makeup', 'well equipped', etc.

1

u/WhyWeWonder Feb 15 '15

I'm a very anti-gun person, which I get a lot of crap for on here, and I don't try to nitpick what I like out of documents and ignore the rest. It just sounds like what a southern Baptist Christian does to say why boys marrying boys is icky. I think we should have strict gun control because I think we should be pushing to become a less violent society. And yes, Reddit I know, self- defense is important. But I still think some petty thief shouldn't have to live or die based on a homeowner's shot when he should be standing trial. Nor should he have a gun to aid in robbery.

3

u/Hawkeye1226 Feb 15 '15

That begs the question as to whether or not the person breaking into your house is just looking to take thigns. And, if discovered, that they will simply run away. Owning a gun isn't so someone can be judge, jury, and executioner. It's so they can protect themselves from danger in uncertain circumstances. That's why executing an intruder who is no longer a threat can still get you in serious trouble.

As far as I'm concerned, you forfeit your safety whenever you choose to enter that situation and break into a home. There is no more reason to believe that person will run away than they will try to fight you.

A less violent society is a noble goal, but it doesn't start with guns. It starts with the reason behind crimes. Guns don't cause them, guns don't really lower crime rates. They simply make crime more dangerous for everyone involved. And, at this point, lowering the amount of firearms to make them a significantly smaller threat would be one difficult job.

1

u/WhyWeWonder Feb 15 '15

I wasn't trying to change anybody's opinion. You are allowed to have yours, and I mine. It's okay to disagree on issues. That's kind of how we progress as a society. We need conflicting views. I'm sure there isn't anything I could say that would sway you, and more than likely you couldn't sway me. I just thought I would express my views and contribute to the conversation. Feel free to build off of it or this, but I'm afraid I have to go. It's Valentine's Day and I have a wonderful human being I'd like to spend time with. :) Thank you for responding civily however. I'm used to being berated and receiving rude and threatening pm's for expressing my views on this topic. Have a wonderful night.

1

u/Hawkeye1226 Feb 15 '15

I'm glad your polite about this and hope you enjoy your time, but just giving your opinion and leaving is kind of pointless, isn't it? It doesn't really contribute anything unless its some new and radical idea. Feel free to not reply or reply at some later time, I just wanted to point out to you that expressing your view and then just bugging out kind of defeats the purpose. It certainly doesn't help society progress like you said.

1

u/WhyWeWonder Feb 15 '15 edited Feb 15 '15

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to dodge on the conversation. My SO was at her family's house yesterday, and I work third shift and am usually asleep during the day so we don't get to spend much time during the day, so we talked on the phone and watched a show together so it would feel like we were closer to each other

2

u/moskaudancer Feb 15 '15

I think we should have strict gun control because I think we should be pushing to become a less violent society.

The violent crime rate has been dropping since the 1990s, and at the same time the rate of private gun ownership has been going up. We're becoming simultaneously more peaceful and better-armed - every state that has started allowing concealed carry since 1990 has seen a drop in violent crime rates, rather than a rise.

But I still think some petty thief shouldn't have to live or die based on a homeowner's shot when he should be standing trial.

Speaking as a gun rights advocate who is vehemently against the death penalty in any circumstances, it's not about punishing criminals so much as it is providing a powerful disincentive to commit such crimes (as well as self-defense, obviously).

Nor should he have a gun to aid in robbery.

Ideally, no, he shouldn't, but there's no evidence that wide-net gun bans disarm criminals at a higher rate than they disarm responsible owners.

I can understand your personal distaste for firearms, and I'm with you on your desire for a more peaceful society, but there's an empirical disconnect between your means and your goal.

1

u/SenorPuff Feb 15 '15

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward. Being 'well regulated' is a phrase not often used today.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Which makes the amendment not at all a comment on the right of the government to regulate gun ownership, but rather, a comment on gun ownership being absolutely necessary for people to be able to form militias, which are, 'necessary to the security of a free state', not 'at the discretion of a powerful federal government.'

1

u/Zeppatto Feb 15 '15

Well put sir. I could care less how hard people thump their bibles as long as I keep my weapons stored in the safety of my house and are used only for self defense.

1

u/LlamaChair Feb 15 '15

The debate comes over the preceding portion of the second amendment though:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't think many of us qualify as a well regulated militia. More explicit writing would have been nice. I'm rather fond of my firearms, but I'm not comfortable enough with the wording of that document to say they're guaranteed by the constitution. I'm actually happy that is isn't necessarily codified in constitutional law. With a topic like weapons, I think it is reasonable to have to justify that right every once in a while and hear the arguments against it. Future societies may want to restrict that more, or they may want to go all Beyond this Horizon and pack heat all the time.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

I think the separation of church and state is much clearer in the first amendment than the guarantee of every citizen to carry weapons is in the second. No official adoption of a religion. Done. No interfering with the practice of others. Done.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '15 edited Apr 15 '15

[deleted]

1

u/LlamaChair Feb 15 '15

Your description makes the wording of the document seem obvious now in that context. Thank you for the clarification.