Uncle Clarence

[I penned this essay before I knew Amy displayed an ounce of sense. Thanks for asking.]

As if it weren't obvious, Uncle Clarence has gone very far off the deep end. The Evangelical Radical Right Wingnuts deep end. Yes, that one, the 'don't let domestic abusers get guns' case. Uncle Clarence says that, since the 18th century didn't define domestic abuse nor pass laws protecting the victims, it is WRONG today to keep guns out of the hands of abusers. Keep in mind that in 1800, wimins had few specific rights.

It was not until the 1870's that the first states banned a man's right to beat his family.

Uncle Clarence made sure he went further into 'history' (page 78). As many have observed about the Evangelical Radical Right Wingnuts, cruelty is the point.

The Government does not offer a single historical regulation that is relevantly similar to §922(g)(8).

So, in other words, since male chauvanist pigs were allowed to slap the wimins around back then, and, evidently, even shoot them, nowadays should be the same. There's that olde famous saying,

The law must be stable but it must not stand still.

Uncle Clarence wants 'the law' to stay in 1791, other amendments and considerable changes to socity be damned. The Evangelical Radical Right Wingnuts cabal always rejoin - "if it's so imporant, then amend the Constitution!". Which is a nice idea, except for the fact that the FF made amending difficult, in part because that's what they wanted, but also because society didn't change very fast before the Civil War (not because of it, just because progress sped up about that time). The world is not linear, and that includes progress. If the judiciary doesn't take account of the "relative" meaning of some text of the Constitution (as amended) vis-a-vis today, we'd be thrown back into the unfettered social Darwinism of 1800. A few would be happy. The rest miserable.

Absolutism of 1789 is pernicious.

Uncle Clarence was the lone dissent.