The US Constitution (not the ship)

[cginok]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The language of the 2nd Amendment is odd: "X being the case, therefore Y".

As a matter of formal logic, the problem with this construction is that if X is not the case, then you negate Y.

So "Johnny is going swimming, he must take his bathing suit"

-- but if Johnny is not in fact going swimming, the second clause is invalid.

Its an odd way to write, and unsatisfactory. Had the aim been to establish a personal right to firearms, the Amendment could have said so, far more simply. The tortured construction is an indication that the 2nd Amendment was not understood by the folks writing it to be a simple matter "you can own a gun", but rather a much more complex issue of the relationship between State militias -- much discussed in the Constitution- and the Federal Government.

The Constitution refers to three separate and distinct groups, or entities if you prefer. The Federal government, State governments, and the people...meaning individuals. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms " It also shows a serious disconnect in logic, and veracity for that matter, to argue that the other amendments of the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights, but yet the second one doesn't. If you study the writings of our Founding Fathers it is quite clear what they intended that right to mean. It's an individual right, as are the rights in the amendment before it, and the amendments that come after it. The only reason why people claim that the wording is convoluted, or "tortured" to use your word, is because if the amendment is interpreted as our Founding Fathers intended it, it doesn't fit the misinterpreting persons political desires. Therefore they intentionally misinterpret it to how they wish it was written or meant, not how it was intended.

What our Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the 2nd amendment was to preserve for their progeny, that would be us, the ability to do the exactly what they did...overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by cginok

The Constitution refers to three separate and distinct groups, or entities if you prefer. The Federal government, State governments, and the people...meaning individuals. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms " It also shows a serious disconnect in logic, and veracity for that matter,

Its always amusing to me that 2nd Amendment fans, despite their purported devotion to it, can't be troubled to cite the full text.

Here's what the 2nd Amendment says:

"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."

Didja notice that in order to make your point, you leave out the first half of the sentence? A common oversight amongst the gun fanciers, for the obvious reason that they don't like what the 2nd Amendment actually says. Instead, they'd like to edit it down . . .

Here's another logic puzzler for you: "Can we extract clauses from sentences in the Constitution (or indeed, in any law) and then claim that we can read these few words divorced from the sentence in which it was embedded?"

If the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment wanted to speak of a right of individuals to possess weapons for self defense, they could have said so.

But that's not what they said, did they?

[dbailey]

Originally Posted by whop

I thought it was the right to wear T-shirts (the right to bare arms).

In the theme parks on vacation I see quite a lot of 'beefy hearty farm style gals'

and I think that the 'right to bare arms' should be repealed!!

What happened to 'the right to arm bears'?

[cginok]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its always amusing to me that 2nd Amendment fans, despite their purported devotion to it, can't be troubled to cite the full text.

Here's what the 2nd Amendment says:



Didja notice that in order to make your point, you leave out the first half of the sentence? A common oversight amongst the gun fanciers, for the obvious reason that they don't like what the 2nd Amendment actually says. Instead, they'd like to edit it down . . .

Here's another logic puzzler for you: "Can we extract clauses from sentences in the Constitution (or indeed, in any law) and then claim that we can read these few words divorced from the sentence in which it was embedded?"

If the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment wanted to speak of a right of individuals to possess weapons for self defense, they could have said so.

But that's not what they said, did they?

That's exactly what they said. Did you miss where I pointed out the three groups that the Constitution refers to? You conveniently skipped over that part didn't you? Not that I blame you for doing so because you can't refute it. Nor can you refute, you didn't even attempt to, how the other amendments of the Bill of Rights are individual rights, yet the 2nd one isn't. Explain that, if you can?

How does the first half of the 2nd amendment make my argument invalid? By law, it does vary from state to state, every adult male is the militia. In my state it specifically states that every male between 17 and 65 is in the militia, that the states militia is under the command of the governor, and that it cannot be deployed outside of the states geographical boundaries. I would give the actual legal name of that militia, yes it does have one, but I don't care to giveaway what state I live in.

I would add that most of the amendments do have clauses in them. Read the 1st amendment, for example, it has 6 different clauses in it. Clause A of an amendment does not make clause B of an amendment invalid.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by cginok

That's exactly what they said. Did you miss where I pointed out the three groups that the Constitution refers to? You conveniently skipped over that part didn't you?

Go back and read the 2nd Amendment. Read the entire sentence, not the half of it you quoted.

Tell me what it says -- all of it, not your edited version- and why its speaks of "a well regulated militia" if the intent is something to do with individuals.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Go back and read the 2nd Amendment. Read the entire sentence, not the half of it you quoted.

Tell me what it says -- all of it, not your edited version- and why its speaks of "a well regulated militia" if the intent is something to do with individuals.

It just could be that way back then a militia was made up of the local INDIVIDUALS who OWNED their own weapons???

[Rogerbh]

This load again, I will repeat what has been argued on this forum before -

In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.*2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp.*2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp.*22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp.*28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.*54–56.

- In the context of Miller and Heller - Military style weapons are protected but limited to what the NFA allowed. Thus explosive devices (hand grenades, atomic bombs, etc.) and fully automatic machine guns (Thompson SMGs, Browning 1919s, etc.) are limited. I notice that gun control groups try to argue that AR15s are unusual weapons but they are military styled weapons that are allowed under the NFA. As to being unusual, go to the rifle range and see that every 3rd or 4th gun on the range is an AR15 variant.

I don't agree that because a weapon has a pistol grip, flash hider, bayonet lug, etc. that it should be limited. Magazine capacity and semiautomatic actions have been around for over 100 years and were not limited by the NFA. They would be something that a militia would want. The Supreme Court will probably decide on these items in the future.

I hate Trump because he is going to lose the conservatives the Supreme Court.

May he rot in hell. Wouldn't trust him even if he got elected as he is a RINO.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

It just could be that way back then a militia was made up of the local INDIVIDUALS who OWNED their own weapons???

A logical interpretation: take a look at the world of 1791 (when the 2nd Amendment was ratified) -- can we look at anything else that was happening at that time-- particularly related to the Militia-- which might help us understand what is meant?

The Militia Acts, for example?

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

A logical interpretation: take a look at the world of 1791 (when the 2nd Amendment was ratified) -- can we look at anything else that was happening at that time-- particularly related to the Militia-- which might help us understand what is meant?

The Militia Acts, for example?

Nothing has changed over 400 years, and most of the modern firearms innovations started 200 years ago, and ended exactly 130 years ago. Several of the founding fathers not only witnessed them, but Ben Franklin predicted them. And I'm not even talking explosives here, the instrument used in the worse school killing some 90 years ago, that has always existed for nearly a millenia.

But if you listen to the US media, they utterly make sense ... with absolutely no fact. People don't read their own history, and that's why it's believable. Just like Americans don't read basic, 18th century physics, which means 60% of people will believe the Moon Landings were faked if they watch a video created by a pair of engineering students.

It's all about making things logical and believable, even if they go completely against everything that exists and is history and science.

Most Americans also don't understand how the 1st Amendment came about, and what is it's foundation. It's not about speech. It's about assembly into a press. The British claimed Americans had the right to free speech, but just couldn't assemble and definitely not as a non-crown sanctioned press.

So ... how good is a 1st Amendment if you allegedly have speech, but cannot join others without the crown's approval? When they come to arrest you for your speech?

Hmmm ... now what does that sound like?

The British said Americans had the right to bear arms, just not assemble into a militia without the crown's approval.

So ... how good is a 2nd Amendment if you allegedly have the right to bear arms, but cannot join others without the crown's approval? When they come to arrest you for your guns?

Of course the 2nd Amendment is about militias, just like the 1st Amendment is about the press!

Because ... it's about the exercise of the individual right to assemble into a larger group, even if it's against the government! In other words ... Without the press, with militias, the individual rights die! The individual is the power!

"Not a real press" ... where have I heard that before, recently, to excuse tapping of phones?

I just never imagined the President could undermine the 1st Amendment, far more than the 2nd. But if you ask Liberals - they say there is nothing wrong.

Fucking with the right to assemble, whether 2nd or 1st Amendment, is so fucking wrong! And Libtards don't get that. In fact, they are fucking up more than the right-wing theocrats these days. Which is why the are scaring both Millenniais and moderates to libertarianism.

Because Liberals are now 'Progressives,' where 'Progressives' means more government to 'help everyone.'

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by cginok

What our Founding Fathers wanted when they wrote the 2nd amendment was to preserve for their progeny, that would be us, the ability to do the exactly what they did...overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.

I admit I don't understand the American mindset when it comes to believing that the right to own a gun is the last line of defence against a government you don't like.
Couldn't you just do what the rest of us do and vote them out?