The second amendment

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have no real means to understand what they were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights. We just think we do and some think their interpretation is the correct one.

If only they told us what they were thinking.

Oh... wait. They did:

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.

 

[Truth in love]

If only they told us what they were thinking.

Oh... wait. They did:

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.

Now if only you would believe the last parts with half the conviction you place on the first.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do think we need to limit nukes and other wmd’s as they can’t be used without massive collateral damage. But I should have access to the same weapons as the guys in the military.

Then join a well-regulated militia and learn to use those weapons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now if only you would believe the last parts with half the conviction you place on the first.

Come again?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Where in the second ammendment do you see any reference to self-defense? It is simply not there. It mentions the security of a free state.

Here is a link to the decision if you want to see how they reached this conclusion. It is a long read as well as the dissenting opinion but it is not unreasonable. This is something that we can debate forever. The fact is the supreme court ruled that an individual has a right to a gun. If you don't believe this is correct then you need to either change the constitution or wait until another court reverses this decision.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Truth in love]

Then join a well-regulated militia and learn to use those weapons.

thanks but my right is not limited to being in one.

 

[Truth in love]

Come again?

You fixate on the first half and ignore the rest, just saying if you put half as much energy into the right of the people and shall not be infringed parts we could agree and move on

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

thanks but my right is not limited to being in one.

Well, it is right now for your access to military weapons.

 

[F1fan]

I don’t k ow what did three Germans lose letting Hitler take over. What did the the Russians lose with Stalin?
If you think facism is gone and communism too if like to sell you a bridge.

This is not answering my questions about what is happening in the USA with easy access to guns. If you are going to avoid hard questions then you're admitting you have no answers.

Do you have any interest is preventing mass shootings in the USA? Or do you think these murders are just the price we pay to have easy access to guns by people unfit to use them responsibly?

 

[F1fan]

You fixate on the first half and ignore the rest, just saying if you put half as much energy into the right of the people and shall not be infringed parts we could agree and move on

It's all one sentence. The "not infringed" part is still conditioned by the "well regulated militia" part. It doesn't say "In order for citizens to protect themselves personally". The Heller decision invented that as an interpretation.

 

[Truth in love]

It's all one sentence. The "not infringed" part is still conditioned by the "well regulated militia" part. It doesn't say "In order for citizens to protect themselves personally". The Heller decision invented that as an interpretation.

The right of the people. It’s not invented it is in English.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The right of the people. It’s not invented it is in English.

Why does the 2A not just state simply "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Instead it has a predicate about a well regulated militia.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You fixate on the first half and ignore the rest, just saying if you put half as much energy into the right of the people and shall not be infringed parts we could agree and move on

Ah - I get it. You missed the context of my post. Next time, maybe read a few posts back in the thread before you respond.

... but you'd like some attention to the second half. Sure - I'll induldge you:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was absolutely vital to maintaining a slave state, where all the white male citizens were expected to be part of militias - armed with their own weapons - that were very much needed to put down slave revolts.

The stability of the states whose economies were based on slavery really did rely on this amendment. They knew that the writing was on the wall and that public sentiment was turning against slavery, so they needed to make it difficult for a Congress dominated by non-slaveholding states to undercut their system of slavery by disarming the slave militias.

Strong language in the Second Amendment reassured the southern states that their system - hypocritically opposed to liberty and equality - would be preserved, which then helped to stabilize the new Union.

 

[Stevicus]

Why does the 2A not just state simply "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Instead it has a predicate about a well regulated militia.

I've often observed how discussions over the wording of the Second Amendment can go, and sometimes it seems reminiscent of people trying to interpret Bible verses. We're not dealing with the Word of God here. We the People have the right to change the wording. We can revise it or even repeal it. (To be sure, it's no easy feat, but it is possible.)

If not, then we have to hope that a judge interprets a vaguely-worded, archaic phrase in the "correct" way. That's the political reality at the moment.

 

[Truth in love]

Why does the 2A not just state simply "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Instead it has a predicate about a well regulated militia.

There was a statement of purpose. Such a statement does not nullify the right. The Constitution has a preamble that states it purpose. Nothing there invalidates the other sections.

 

[Truth in love]

Ah - I get it. You missed the context of my post. Next time, maybe read a few posts back in the thread before you respond.

... but you'd like some attention to the second half. Sure - I'll induldge you:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was absolutely vital to maintaining a slave state, where all the white male citizens were expected to be part of militias - armed with their own weapons - that were very much needed to put down slave revolts.

The stability of the states whose economies were based on slavery really did rely on this amendment. They knew that the writing was on the wall and that public sentiment was turning against slavery, so they needed to make it difficult for a Congress dominated by non-slaveholding states to undercut their system of slavery by disarming the slave militias.

Strong language in the Second Amendment reassured the southern states that their system - hypocritically opposed to liberty and equality - would be preserved, which then helped to stabilize the new Union.

I see so there no way that the attempts to cease the weapons of the people at the start of the revolutionary or any of the thousands of years of history where jerks in power abused the common man had anything to do with this. Its all about slavery.

Do you think anyone actually believes this?

 

[Koldo]

Here is a link to the decision if you want to see how they reached this conclusion. It is a long read as well as the dissenting opinion but it is not unreasonable. This is something that we can debate forever. The fact is the supreme court ruled that an individual has a right to a gun. If you don't believe this is correct then you need to either change the constitution or wait until another court reverses this decision.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

We all know how they have reached the conclusion: "Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?"

 

[Koldo]

It isn't about "instead", but rather
the intention behind the wording.

Each and every single individual at the Congress at the time might have had a, ever so slightly, different understanding of what the words meant. So, if, for instance, Madison understood the terms to mean something it doesn't mean everyone else understood in the exact same manner. Therefore, referring to Madison's interpretation (once again, just as an example) by itself doesn't mean a thing. If, however, you can establish that the majority understood it in a given way, you have a valid point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Each and every single individual at the Congress at the time might have had a, ever so slightly, different understanding of what the words meant. So, if, for instance, Madison understood the terms to mean something it doesn't mean everyone else understood in the exact same manner. Therefore, referring to Madison's interpretation (once again, just as an example) by itself doesn't mean a thing. If, however, you can establish that the majority understood it in a given way, you have a valid point.

Trying to understand original intent has its difficulties.
Nonetheless, it sure beats strict construction or living
document (ie, it means what government wants it to mean).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Each and every single individual at the Congress at the time might have had a, ever so slightly, different understanding of what the words meant. So, if, for instance, Madison understood the terms to mean something it doesn't mean everyone else understood in the exact same manner. Therefore, referring to Madison's interpretation (once again, just as an example) by itself doesn't mean a thing. If, however, you can establish that the majority understood it in a given way, you have a valid point.

This difference in understanding would have been exacerbated with an issue that's specific to the Second Amendment: in a copying error, the version of the text that was sent out to many of the states for ratification by their state legislature omitted a comma that was in the version of the text passed by Congress.

This has raised the question - which AFAICT has never really been resolved in the courts - of whether the Second Amendment was ever actually ratified by enough states for it to be properly adopted.