Of the Second Amendment

Image via Wikipedia

Nothing is more debated than the interpretation of the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If you follow my posts and/or activities, you may know that I am quite the fan of definitions.

So this can be fun.

To keep on point, here is the outline-

1. The Second Amendment‘s original meaning

2. The Constitution- Living or static?

Let’s dig in!

The Second Amendment’s Original Meaning

A Supreme Court Justice went on NPR and explained this subject in extreme detail about why the second amendment was there in the first place. It turns out, it was a state vs. federal argument with Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson, the Virginia representative, and Hamilton, the advocate for the federal government. Jefferson wanted the second amendment in there so the federal govt. could never seize the arms of state militias, and leaving them vulnerable for military takeover. Hamilton, who was gung-ho for a national army, thought that was absurd, since creating a union state militias, Hamilton believed, would go on the way side.

Jefferson won the argument, and the second amendment went in.

Is the Constitution a living document?

Now the next topic. In 2011, there are now active state militias. So based on the original interpretation of the second amendment, it is no longer relevant.

Unless…we make it relevant.

The Supreme Court is meant to interpret the law of the land as they see fit.

In that case, the answer is yes, the U.S. Constitution is a living document.

What’s Next?

With the recent tragedy of the Arizona Congresswoman, the gun control policy of the United States will come into the limelight, with emphasis on what the second amendment really means. The issue is not going to be resolved until the High Court rules on it. Until then, as it is happening now, I see no issue with state regulation. Can you create a parallel with individual protection and state militia? It’s a stretch, but I can see it. Can the Court make a case that gun control is regulated by the federal government because of the new federal mandate of protecting the free world includes domestic protection? I can see that as well.

I have no opinion on what’s right or wrong (if everybody had a gun, it would in essence be as if no one had a gun, theoretically speaking) but there obviously a need for society to be given an answer.

Or, a definition.

WANTED: Definitions

I have had the pleasure to be a part of several conversations that have focused on definitions. Definitions of words, phrases, ideas, and anything that takes space in our reality. I believe that our society grows when we force ourselves to define new things, and challenge the definitions of old.

Before we dive in, let’s set the foundation:

Define (v):
1a. to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of
1b. to discover and set forth the meaning of

Those two actions outlined above (from Webster’s Dictionary) happen in our everyday lives. Whether we are “defining” a relationship with another human being, to figuring out the color of a certain shirt, we are constantly creating parameters  in our environment.

Why? Because we need those parameters- those definitions we create- to understand.

Society (as we define it) is changing quickly, and the marketing industry is trying to be one step faster. As professional communicators and as citizens, we all are scrambling to apply current definitions to the new trends that are appearing before our eyes and fingertips.

We need to do better.

In previous posts, I have rambled on about bringing creativity back, encouraging playtime, and the like. Now I am challenging all of us to trash many of the definitions we know, and create new ones that fit our 2010 lives, whatever that may mean.

I realize that there are quite a few “thought leaders” who took a shot of doing the job for us, but we can’t let people think for us. That is not good for you. That is not good for me. And quite frankly, it is not good for them. A definition, to me, is like theory. It must be challenged, again and again, from all angles, until it can be accepted.

For example:

1. What exactly do we mean by two-way communications? Is that enough?

2. Does being politically correct mean we cannot offend anyone?

3. What’s the difference between ‘marketing‘, ‘advertising‘, and ‘sales’ ?

4.  Are there really experts anymore? (see Open4 Definition)

5. We are not a free enterprise system. Or are we?

6. What Generally Accepted Ideas in our society are wrong?

Just to start the mind thinking. Maybe those are good questions, maybe not. My overall qualm with our current state of interaction this that we have become too complacent with giving the soapbox to someone, and then not question a single thing that flows from their lips. The term “due diligence” is almost as archaic as good Nickelodeon cartoons (Rugrats, Are You Afraid of the Dark- my heart lies with you).

Definitions are the foundation of the consideration sets we create to form our perception of our environment (consumer behaviorists and psychologists eat your heart out).

The better, newer definitions we create, the better our human community becomes.