Last weekend Kaili Joy Gray (Angry Mouse) posted a front page diary chastising liberals for not supporting the Second Amendment as an inviolable individual right. While there's much to dispute there, particularly the use of classic NRA approved fallacy arguments, (and here is an excellent reply and another poignant one) the ensuing intra-left fracas over the "original" meaning of the Second amendment reminded me how such debates are generally useless and unresolvable. It appears that along with the right's manifest victory in the US gun debate, as evidenced by convincing even large numbers of liberals to adopt their position, they also succeeded in having liberals absorb the silly pursuit of original meaning in order to resolve important social and philosophical questions around ambiguous legal language.
The Intuitive Appeal of Originalism
Like so many issues that fall into a classic left-right divide, the right wing position on Originalism benefits from simplistic "common sense" virtues. In daily life, words have meaning, usually unless someone is being clever with some kind of double entendre, poetry or witticism, their words mean one particular thing, and even if one can contrive another meaning out of the words, both parties usually know what the intended meaning was by the context. Further, most everyone despises legal pedantry in the form of intricate and nearly indecipherably dense legal contracts ostensibly made necessary by disingenuous lawyers creatively interpreting clauses to twist the intended meaning. So there's already some good reasons to favour plain language obvious interpretations coupled with the natural human tendency to believe that one's unthinking assumptions about the meanings of words are shared by all.
In daily life, this sort of originalism is useful and necessary. When it comes to interpreting an email from your boss, or a note from your spouse, they probably aren't going to write something in a deliberately ambiguous way out of some inability to decide what meaning they want to convey.
Ed Tinsley, the GOP's Congressional candidate in NM-02 who's running against Democrat Harry Teague, has been caught in the act again. Tinsley's latest inflammatory remarks -- and what can be perceived as a threat to Barack Obama -- came at a recent candidate forum in Roswell. Tinsley was asked about his views on gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Instead of talking about his or his opponent's positions on the issue, Tinsley launched into a disturbing attack on presidential candidate Barack Obama, as you can see in the video clip above. Ed Tinsley said:
Well, I'll say this, somebody that certainly doesn't get it is Barack Obama when he says that our district clings to our guns and our religion out of frustration. I have a rude awakening for him and we'd love to have him as a guest at our ranch.
Check out Tinsley's demeanor when he says the words "rude awakening." What do you think he has in mind when he says it? What do you think his words are meant to convey?
STATE BLOGS
