Should Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett, who believes in Originalism, which states that the Constitution does not change over time and we must go back to its original interpretation, not also apply that doctrine to the Second Amendment? Under that interpretation, should the Constitution not only allow Americans to buy muskets? One cannot interpret parts of the Constitution as our Founders intended to and apply it selectively. The conservative Supreme Court Justice must either apply modernity or the social order of ancient times across the board.
And since Justice Barrett and her conservative colleagues chose to vote for anti-abortion partially because it did not exist after the American Revolutionary wars, should she not also vote to protect the Second Amendment rights by only allowing the sale of muskets to the general public?
Here at Punditry, we are not legal experts; but by golly it’s a simple enough concept. Either you interpret the Constitution to its original intent, or you don’t.
It (2nd Amendment0 was, I assure Justice Barret and her conservative colleagues promoting gun violence, not intended to use against our own children.
ORIGINALISM AS CONSERVATIVES SEE IT
During her testimony, Justice Barrett discussed the legal doctrine of Originalism this way:
“that meaning does not change”. To many of us, her words sound like we should only be allowed to buy muskets, and not weapons of war people use to kill our children with. Furthermore, the Founders intended the Second Amendment to protect us from foreign invaders or an oppressive government neither of which exist. It was, I assure Justice Barret and her conservative colleagues promoting gun violence, not intended to use against our own children.
Should the Constitution not only allow Americans to buy the original weapons that existed at the time?
Because if our Founders are able to witness what the Second Amendment has done to our country, they would rise from their graves to re-write it.
DID YOU KNOW THAT TALIBAN, AL-QAEDA, AND ISIS BELIEVE IN ORIGINALISM?
As Originalism exists in a Christian country, so it does exist in Muslim countries. Two Sunni modern schools of thoughts, Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood, embrace interpreting the Koran back to its 7th century meaning, and since Sunni Islam regards the Hadith as the social order Muslims must pursue, the same way Americans regard their Constitution as the text dictating their social order — and which they often sprinkle with an extremist Christian ideology –, one can see the parallels between conservative America and the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS who adhere strictly to the Hadith.
This is why today’s Supreme Court is dangerous to American values and modernity. The conservative Justices are selectively leading the country to ancient times when it conveniences their ideology, and pressing us to accept the violence of modernity while disregarding Originalism.
Instead of the ability to buy modern weapons of wars, should Clarence Thomas, Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts not also apply the Constitution to only buying muskets? Because if our Founders are able to witness what the Second Amendment has done to our country, they would rise from their graves to re-write it.
How is that for an original (ism) idea?