Straight Dope Message Board

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

"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."

Far be it from me to be a pedant about punctuation, but the statement is separated by commas, not periods. Seems an important detail. Though clearly the courts have spoken to rule otherwise.

The way it is punctuated, it looks like there are two subordinate clauses between “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … shall not be infringed.” The key issue appears to be the importance of a militia, the part about keeping and bearing arms being a lateral component of that.

Also, I would note the part where it firmly protects the right to manufacture and trade weapons. 51

[XT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

They still don't necessarily mean what you want them to, no matter how frantically you handwave. That's been pointed out to you multiple times. You're telling us that you don't want the clause to mean anything, so it doesn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Except that we know it does because, again, the folks who wrote the thing also wrote extensively on the subject. That's always been the flaw in your argument because you have never bothered to really read what their thoughts were, instead just wanting to use a modern interpretation of a jumbled mashup of concepts that eventually got voted on....by a committee. In a hot room. With politicians with various goals and desires...one of which was to finish the vote and go somewhere else.

I didn't say the clause means nothing. Again, not like this should surprise you as we've discussed this before, so your feigned ignorance of this aspect is probably really convincing to everyone who hasn't seen these ridiculous debates with you in them for the last decade. If you REALLY don't recall I can go over it once again, but I think you know the answer...and why it DOES work that way.

If you're declaring the rights of slaveholders to suppress insurrections, you're welcome to. Are you really?

Am I? Why no, I'm not. But clearly you DO know why it was worded the way it was, and who it applied too (namely...white folks). Of course, a lot of rights were set out with that exact same premise. The fact that the US was a slave holding state and that such accommodations were made in the past is distasteful, but I don't see you using a similar argument to get rid of the other rights that were intended for exactly the same set of people. Doing so would basically toss the entire Constitution out, which I doubt anyone really wants. Today, there aren't any slave holders...and, happily enough (though this still has massive flaws), nearly every citizen, regardless of race or religion can own a gun. Definitely not what the original authors wanted, to be sure...but not in the way that you are trying to make it. As the concept of who could and did have the franchise has expanded, so have the folks who are protected by the various rights. 52

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

Nope. I can't find anything in there that would support the claim "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense..."

Looking at the timestamp on that post, you saw my post, then read that entire detailed and comprehensive article, and composed and posted your reply -- all in less than five minutes. The thoroughness with which you analyze challenges to your preconceived notions is ... less than impressive. Perhaps this is why you -- and so many American gun supporters -- can't see things that are glaringly obvious to the rest of the world.

I'm not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation -- literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology -- they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made. 53

[XT]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

Looking at the timestamp on that post, you saw my post, then read that entire detailed and comprehensive article, and composed and posted your reply -- all in less than five minutes. The thoroughness with which you analyze challenges to your preconceived notions is ... less than impressive. Perhaps this is why you -- and so many American gun supporters -- can't see things that are glaringly obvious to the rest of the world.

I'm not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation -- literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology -- they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made.

Doubtful. And predicated on flawed data, namely that today things are so much more violent than in the past. Or the the founders would care, considering the relative numbers (300+ million citizens, nearly 100 million gun owners and...12k deaths a year? They would definitely be like 'man, as a percentage of the population more folks die of bad water or cuts each year, you bunch of pussies!). What they probably WOULD care about is that minorities are also now full citizens, and that all the rights fully pertain to them. THAT would be a major mental disconnect for even the most liberal (using that term the way they would understand it) of the founding fathers to try and wrap their heads around. But that they would think that the 2nd is the biggest mistake they ever made? Not a chance. For one thing, they would be puzzled...I mean, they knew they weren't perfect, so they gave us a way to change the thing if it REALLY was as archaic and out of step as you make it out to be. Of course, the fact that the public itself isn't wanting to do so kind of puts your own comments in perspective, I'd say. 54

[pkbites]

So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states? 55

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by pkbites

So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

<insert commerce clause bullshit here> 56

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

<insert commerce clause bullshit here>

Heh, I was toying with the idea of tossing out a joke relating to that.

The obvious approach for a federal government sufficiently annoyed by gun owners to take is to just draft you all. That's legal, right? Militia, army, tomato, potato. 57

[ElvisL1ves]

"Supremacy clause" would have been a better answer. 58

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka

<insert commerce clause bullshit here>

And if such arms had been completely manufactured in such states, using only raw materials found in those states?

My point is the repeal or reinterpretation of the 2nd would not have the effect some fantasize it would have.

Also, “Security of a free state” is not limited to invasion or tyranny. Being secure in ones own home and person, being present during times of emergency (such as living in a disaster area or areas of unrest) etc. are all justified reasons for the individual right to arms and part of being necessary for the security of a free state. 59

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by XT

Except that we know it does because, again, the folks who wrote the thing also wrote extensively on the subject.

Including this:

(The Congress shall have Power) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

(The Congress shall have Power) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

As anyone who has actually read the entire Constitution would know, but that you obviously do not. Please do yourself a favor and rectify that deficiency. 60

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

As anyone who has actually read the entire Constitution would know, but that you obviously do not. Please do yourself a favor and rectify that deficiency.

You will get a counter-argument that 2A begins “A militia …”, which is a totally and completely different thing from “The militia”. Somehow. 61

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

"Supremacy clause" would have been a better answer.

That's not the clause they've used to justify it in the past. For example, go see how many times "commerce" shows up in 18 USC § 922 62

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

Or ignored as outdated.
When was the last time Congress granted a letter of Marque and Reprisal?

ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11

After we agree not to do so due to International law, in 1907. Altho we earlier agreed in 1856 but didnt sign, due to other issues. 63

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

2- We have a militia. It's called the National Guard.

The National Guard has been Federalized and even sent overseas. It is not in any way a "Militia' anymore. Some states do maintain a militia, however. 64

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Automatic weapons are pretty much illegal or tightly regulated. Few are owned privately.

Semi-automatic shotguns and deer rifles are quite common and used totally legally and in a sportsmanlike manner.


https://www.chuckhawks.com/great_cen...ing_rifles.htm

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...e-planet-26036

https://www.gameandfishmag.com/edito...es_1010/244962


You know, the gun grabbers would do well to educate themselves so they arent always posting stuff out of ignorance like this. 65

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Automatic weapons are pretty much illegal or tightly regulated. Few are owned privately.
.

So how will a militia overthrow a tyrannical government, which IS armed with fully automatic weapons? 66

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Fortunately, the Supreme Court chose not to solicit (much less give weight to) your opinion on the matter.

No, that decision doesnt say that at all. It says that local and state governments may ban " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines with the ability “to
accept more than 10 rounds.”

So, yeah, you can ban some semi automatic rifles if they have a 10+ round magazine which most semi automatic deer rifles do not.

In no way did SCOTUS rule that "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.".

In most areas they are still quite legal to own.

Do note that in that decision there is this "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), this Court established that the Second
Amendment provides an individual right to possess
firearms, and specifically the right to possess a
handgun for self-defense in the home. "



So, as I have said repeatedly, such reasonable limitations on the 2nd Ad are quite legal.

Altho of course such a ban is pointless and stupid since such weapons are almost never used in crimes. But still- legal. 67

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Specifically, it's defined as two types: the "real" one (the Guard) and the imaginary one (the unorganized thing).

And the standard response to that common claim is that, if they didn't intend it to guide the understanding of its meaning, why did they even put it in?

The national Gd is no longer in any way shape or form a Militia.

and calling the "unorganized militia" = "Imaginary" is like calling the Moon Walk a hoax. The Unorganized a militia is part of US Federal Law, liek it or now. Putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes wont make it not there.

Because the "no standing army" faction wanted a mention of a militia. The first wording didnt mention a militia at all. The militia part was put in to make the "no standing army" faction happy instead of them adding a additional amendment.

We have been over this several times. 68

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

Maybe this will help.

Yes. That is the Media, telling you it's guns, rather than- the media, as noted sociologist have proven in peer reviewed journals.

Violent crime have been decreasing- despite even more guns- while mass shootings are on the increase. The reason for that increase is the Media glorifying the killers. It's a fact, proven in studies.

It's also a fact that the media doesnt want you to know that. They'd rather blame guns.

But there were still hundreds of millions of guns decades ago, before the mass shootings were a common occurrence. However the mass media glorifying the shooters in a 24 hour news cycle is new- and the cause of the increase. 69

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by wolfpup

...

I'm not going to participate further in this thread, but let me just say that if the Founders could have anticipated the future, if they could have foreseen the Second Amendment quickly degenerating into irrelevant obsolescence, while its unintended consequences gradually mutated into a curse of violence on the whole nation -- literally an epidemic that is widely studied as a compelling subject in epidemiology -- they would have recognized it as the single biggest mistake they ever made.

No, they also recognized that people had a right to be secure in their homes and defend them.

And studying a criminology or sociology issue with epidemiology is like studying the moon with a microscope- the wrong tool from the wrong science. Thus studies have been widely disproven and shown to be biased and bogus. 70

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, that decision doesnt say that at all. It says that local and state governments may ban " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines with the ability “to
accept more than 10 rounds.”

So, yeah, you can ban some semi automatic rifles if they have a 10+ round magazine which most semi automatic deer rifles do not.

In no way did SCOTUS rule that "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle.".

In most areas they are still quite legal to own.

Do note that in that decision there is this "In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), this Court established that the Second
Amendment provides an individual right to possess
firearms, and specifically the right to possess a
handgun for self-defense in the home. "



So, as I have said repeatedly, such reasonable limitations on the 2nd Ad are quite legal.

Altho of course such a ban is pointless and stupid since such weapons are almost never used in crimes. But still- legal.

Do you ever read past the first paragraph? You should, because it says:

Petitioners have not and cannot demonstrate
why a case involving restrictions on assault weapons
and large capacity magazines -- an area for which
there is neither a conflict among the circuits, nor any
confusion concerning the proper constitutional
standard to apply -- would provide an appropriate
forum for this Court to revisit its decisions in Heller
and McDonald. The consistent decisions of the
courts below do not merit further review by this
Court.

IOW, "You were told NO, now quit your whining".

Additionally, it's become clear to me that engaging with you in these discussions really is, "pointless and stupid". 71

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by pkbites

So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

Pretty much none. They could ban the interstate movement of guns. They already ban the interstate sale of guns, unless you are a dealer.

So in order to ban guns, you'd have to get all fifty states to agree. I mean, that's what the gun grabbers have said themselves, when it's been pointed out that some areas did ban handguns, and it did nothing to affect violent crime. Or that CA has banned "assault weapons" for quite some time now, with no effect. The gun grabbers say that those local bans are useless, as the guns move across state lines. That does have some truth to it.

So then wait a minute, not only are we gonna have to get all fifty states to ban guns, but then there's still 3-400 millions guns out there, so of course the killings will continue. Then the gun grabbers will say that "of course they continue. we need to not only ban guns nationwide, but confiscate all other existing guns". In other words, house to house searches and confiscation.

And since banning "assault weapons " is Constitutional, what do they want to ban? Well, of course all semi-autos. Then since a bolt of lever action can be fired almost as fast, ban them too- and since handguns are the biggest use in crimes, ban them also.....

ah that slope is very slippery indeed.... 72

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by Shodan

You don't get to change the wording of the 2A without amending the Constitution. So your "interpretation" of the 2A doesn't hold water, and you seem to recognize that.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is interesting. Perhaps you can petition your Representative in Congress for permission to travel on a Post Road to the place of government so you can address your concerns. And while you're there, would you also ask why Congress is not regulating Commerce with foreign Nations. 73

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by pkbites

So let’s say the 2nd gets repealed.

Most states have constitutions that include an individual right to bear arms, and have laws that allow for the bearing of those arms both in private and public.

What authority does the federal government have to tell the individual states they cannot allow their citizens to own or bear the arms of their choice while in those states?

If a federal gun ban were constitutional, it would apply everywhere in the U.S. Supremacy clause. 74

[kirkrapine]

BTW, I have no brief for any particular gun-control regime. I just don't believe gun rights are important enough to be placed above and beyond ordinary legislative politics by constitutional protection. If the 2d Am were repealed, that doesn't mean the end of private gun ownership, it just means the fight over gun control shifts from the courts to the elections and legislatures -- where gun-rights activists still have a good chance of winning.

The NRA does not, as is sometimes said, have power in DC because of its campaign contributions, which don't really amount to all that much. It has power because every Congresscritter knows the NRA can mobilize millions of single-issue voters. Repealing the 2d won't change that. 75

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Do you ever read past the first paragraph? You should, because it says:



IOW, "You were told NO, now quit your whining".

Additionally, it's become clear to me that engaging with you in these discussions really is, "pointless and stupid".

I dont see how in any way that paragraph invalidates what I was saying. Heller said reasonable limitations are Ok, and that seems to be a reasonable limitation.

You do know that " assault weapons
and large capacity magazines " is not the same at all as "semi-automatic rifle". Altho true, assault weapons are all semi-automatics, there are many, many guns which are semi-automatics that are not assault weapons and do not have a large capacity magazine. So you saying that that case somehow made your statement of "No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle." correct is false. (Not to mention you obviously didnt know that civilians havent really been able to own automatic weapons for some tome now).

It's like the government banning street racing cars and you saying that means they banned all cars with 8 cylinder engines. Or that they banned heroin and that means they banned aspirin also. Both are painkillers, right?

Please educate yourself. 76

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

If a federal gun ban were constitutional, it would apply everywhere in the U.S. Supremacy clause.

It could, depending on how it was worded.

It would take probably another Constitutional ad, like this one "After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited." 77

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Abatis

See, the 2nd Amendment is working fine; all that the 2nd Amendment was ever intended to do is just maintain the people's numerical superiority over the nation's armed forces and since the citizens have their own military useful arms in their own hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority, or just the local ruffians.

Cliven Bundy and his gang of criminals stole land from the U.S. taxpayer and held off the Feds with guns. Koresh and his criminals defended their freedom to follow a religion that emphasized rapes and polygamy using guns at Waco, Texas. Are these the examples that defenders of the view quoted above would point to?

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

"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."

Far be it from me to be a pedant about punctuation, but the statement is separated by commas, not periods. Seems an important detail. Though clearly the courts have spoken to rule otherwise.

Nitpick: The version with two commas (or, worse, three!) is simply ungrammatical. Shouldn't all sentences in legal documents that cannot be parsed, that are pure covfefe like junk DNA, be ignored?

But to defend the Infallible Founding Fathers™®, As seen at this image of the handwritten Bill of Rights, the first comma (which renders the entire Amendment gibberish) looks like just a smudge. (Thanks to eschereal for the link, which worked great in 2015 but now, even with help from the Wayback Machine, requires extra clicks.) 78

[bump]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

Ultimately it's none of anyone else's business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it's legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?

That's the thing here- you're proposing curtailing the rights of millions of people because a literal handful of people can't behave. It's the same old elementary school bullshit writ large, where that one dipshit kid can't behave, so the whole class loses the ability to do something. It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now.

It's about like saying that because 15 or 20 dumbass teenagers driving sports cars cause fatal wrecks and kill 500 people nationwide, that nobody nationwide should be able to drive sports cars, regardless of driving record, where they live, age, etc...

That's my main objection with this- it's a bunch of people presuming to tell another group of law-abiding citizens what they can or can't do, because of what some OTHER people are doing.

Beyond that, there's something else at work that's making the mass shooting an attractive way for people to act out- what is that something else? I'm not at all convinced that merely removing guns from the equation is going to prevent that- they'll just find another way to do something similar- homemade bombs, driving through crowds, hijacking airliners, etc.... just to name a few things that have already been done in recent history.

THAT is what needs to be identified and remedied. Anything else is at best treating a symptom. 79

[Joeu]

Re: Well-regulated.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

This link, (admittedly pro-gun) gives several quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary over the years, demonstrating the archaic use of the phrase "well regulated".

I generally tend to be skeptical of arguments from dictionary definitions, but I'm especially skeptical of arguments from incomplete dictionary definitions. That admittedly pro-gun site did some not admitted cherry-picking.

The OED itself defines well-regulated this way:

Properly governed or directed; (now) esp. strictly controlled by rules or regulations. Also: accurately calibrated or adjusted.

and the citations, if you read all of them, provide a much wider range of meanings than that source acknowledges.
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/227532 80

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

The national Gd is no longer in any way shape or form a Militia.

Dick Act, 1903. Not that you gotta like it. Also do please note that it all became moot anyway when the Regular Army was founded. 1791, for the record.

and calling the "unorganized militia" = "Imaginary" is like calling the Moon Walk a hoax.

If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

If something doesn't actually exist in the real world, legal fictions notwithstanding, then yes, it is imaginary.

Originally Posted by bump

Ultimately it's none of anyone else's business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it's legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?

It's the business of anyone you might intend to shoot or threaten with it. And you are YOU to tell us you never will? You did buy the thing, after all. 81

[ralfy]

One can also consider Art. 1 Sec. 8, the Militia Acts, the history of the use of militias, and that in relation to the War of 1812. 82

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

If something doesn't actually exist in the real world, legal fictions notwithstanding, then yes, it is imaginary.

Maybe you're issued a super-secret membership card and decoder ring with your first gun purchase?

The "unorganized" bit is the only believable part of the entire argument. 83

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Joeu

Re: Well-regulated.


I generally tend to be skeptical of arguments from dictionary definitions, but I'm especially skeptical of arguments from incomplete dictionary definitions. That admittedly pro-gun site did some not admitted cherry-picking.

The OED itself defines well-regulated this way:

and the citations, if you read all of them, provide a much wider range of meanings than that source acknowledges.
https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/227532

Couldn't open your link, defaults to member login. And the current definition of "well regulated" isn't at issue. 84

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by bump

Ultimately it's none of anyone else's business what rifle I choose to buy, as long as it's legal. And who are YOU to tell me otherwise?

I'm a voting citizen of the United States, that's who. And if enough of my fellow citizens petition our elected representatives to change the law - another right guaranteed by the Constitution - who are YOU to tell me otherwise.

That's the thing here- you're proposing curtailing the rights of millions of people because a literal handful of people can't behave. It's the same old elementary school bullshit writ large, where that one dipshit kid can't behave, so the whole class loses the ability to do something. It pissed me off then, and it pisses me off now.

Sorry your elementary school years were so bad, but I'll bet none of your classmates was killed by a stray bullet. TWO of my wife's students were, while another one was convicted of murder.

It's about like saying that because 15 or 20 dumbass teenagers driving sports cars cause fatal wrecks and kill 500 people nationwide, that nobody nationwide should be able to drive sports cars, regardless of driving record, where they live, age, etc...

It's more like a bunch of teenagers who back in the '70s got the right to buy liquor at age 18, and then drove drunk and killed a bunch of people, and then Congress forced the states to raise the drinking age back to 21, and lower the the blood alcohol level for "impaired" to .08, so now you have to stop at two drinks instead of drinking a 6-pack at a party and then driving home. Sorry to spoil your fun.

That's my main objection with this- it's a bunch of people presuming to tell another group of law-abiding citizens what they can or can't do, because of what some OTHER people are doing.

Yeah, that's how laws work. That's why none of us can make money off insider trading. Those assholes on Wall Street abused it.

Beyond that, there's something else at work that's making the mass shooting an attractive way for people to act out- what is that something else? I'm not at all convinced that merely removing guns from the equation is going to prevent that- they'll just find another way to do something similar- homemade bombs, driving through crowds, hijacking airliners, etc.... just to name a few things that have already been done in recent history.

Sure. Banning semi automatic weapons wouldn't have stopped Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles Whitman, Sirhan Sirhan, or Timothy McVeigh. On the other hand, The Black September terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics resulted in 11 hostages and five terrorists being killed. Stepehen Paddock locked himself in a hotel room in Las Vegas, fired 1,100 rounds of ammo, killed 58 people and wounded 422 more all by himself.

Anything else is at best treating a symptom.

So, your solution is to do nothing until we figure out what drives some people to kill other people? 85

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by septimus

Cliven Bundy and his gang of criminals stole land from the U.S. taxpayer and held off the Feds with guns. Koresh and his criminals defended their freedom to follow a religion that emphasized rapes and polygamy using guns at Waco, Texas. Are these the examples that defenders of the view quoted above would point to?



Nitpick: The version with two commas (or, worse, three!) is simply ungrammatical. Shouldn't all sentences in legal documents that cannot be parsed, that are pure covfefe like junk DNA, be ignored?

...

Want me to list the excesses that the 1st Ad has allowed?

Grammar wasn't the same or as hidebound in 1787. 86

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Dick Act, 1903. Not that you gotta like it. Also do please note that it all became moot anyway when the Regular Army was founded. 1791, for the record.

If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

If something doesn't actually exist in the real world, legal fictions notwithstanding, then yes, it is imaginary.
....

Yes, but that provision of Dick act has become obsolete since then, due to WW1 & WW2, the National Gd has become federalized.

In that same Dick act. That proviso is still valid.

No, there are like 70 Million members. Go to any shooting range, you will see members of the unorganized Militia. 87

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

If it's real, where do I go to find it? Hint: Only the gun crowd has ever even heard of it. If it ever did become a real thing, it wouldn't be "unorganized" anymore, now would it?

I put “unorganized militia” into my thesaurus and it gave me back “mob”. 88

[ElvisL1ves]

I get "neighborhood gang". And for "resisting tyranny" I get "killing cops".

That's the right some folks proudly claim to have. 89

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by septimus

But to defend the Infallible Founding Fathers™®, As seen at this image of the handwritten Bill of Rights, the first comma (which renders the entire Amendment gibberish) looks like just a smudge. (Thanks to eschereal for the link, which worked great in 2015 but now, even with help from the Wayback Machine, requires extra clicks.)

You are mistaken on two points. The first two commas are unmistakably there. The third comma (between “Arms” and “shall”) looks like a single dot (period), as though the scribe has just dipped his pen and rested it there momentarily before resuming writing. I can imagine commas ending up in inappropriate places in the pen-dipping days.

But you are correct that there is no way to parse the sentence with any number of commas that makes it grammatical. Oddly, 2A appears to be the only part of the Constitution that resists clear interpretation; 7A is slightly awkward, but it does resolve with much less difficulty.

On the second point, wherefore dost thou accuse me of link-rot? I posted no links in this thread – can you direct me to my error? 90

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by eschereal

I put “unorganized militia” into my thesaurus and it gave me back “mob”.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

I get "neighborhood gang". And for "resisting tyranny" I get "killing cops".

WHAT thesaurus and reference sites are you using??? 91

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

WHAT thesaurus and reference sites are you using???

The one which says that “well-regulated” is an antonym for “unorganized”. “Militia” itself bears organization within its meaning. 92

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by eschereal

The one which says that “well-regulated” is an antonym for “unorganized”. “Militia” itself bears organization within its meaning.

Seriously, I mean what thesaurus are you using? Nothing I've found has anything like that; unless I was <whooshed> that you were just being sarcastic. 93

[ElvisL1ves]

The Fantasy to Reality Converter.

If you think it's wrong, please show where. 94

[QuickSilver]

The unalienable right to guns argument goes back to the unalienable right to muskets, crossbows, swords, spears, clubs and rocks. Each in its own time was a weapon of assault and defense. However, there is a huge technological difference when it comes to guns as compared to the weapons that precede it. Especially with the advent of multi-round magazines and rapid fire weapons. Experts testified in federal courts that these kind of weapons are not intended for home/self-defense. Yet, people are buying them in record numbers. Why? Because they have the unalienable right to them? Then why not an unalienable right to much more technologically advanced and lethal weapons? Why not full on machine guns? Why not mortars, grenade and rocket launchers?

Seems to me, society decided to draw a line with respect to civilian access to certain weapons. Thus effectively putting limits on unalienable rights to guns. Limits that did not need to exist at inception of 2A, however, limits that were defined over time as weapon technology advanced.

More to the point of this discussion however, is the fact that since limits do exist on the unalienable rights to some guns. Perhaps those rights are not so unalienable after all? Pro-gun rights activists may not like it, but their rights for guns is NOT unalienable and is subject to limits set by society. Society that is less and less indulgent of the idea that Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness can only be assured by guns in the hands of an armed citizenry.

So maybe lets drop the pretense that your guns are an essential part of this democracy and your personal freedoms. What they are, are the vestiges of a false sense of security blanket that this nation has outgrown.

So, yeah: It no longer matters what the 2nd Amendment says as it has outlived it's purpose. It's well past time it was over-turned. 95

[eschereal]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

It no longer matters what the 2nd Amendment says as it has outlived it's purpose. It's well past time it was over-turned.

It does not have to be “over-turned” per se, it just needs proper interpretation. Its subject matter is entirely plural: all the other amendments use the word “Persons” when it is necessary to make it clear that the rights of individuals are being referenced. 2A does not. It does not even say “the right of people”, it says “the right of the people”, which is a collective noun. If it was intended to say that everyone gets to/should have their own personal arsenal, it would have been more clearly written. 96

[septimus]

Originally Posted by eschereal

You are mistaken on two points. The first two commas are unmistakably there. The third comma (between “Arms” and “shall”) looks like a single dot (period), as though the scribe has just dipped his pen and rested it there momentarily before resuming writing. I can imagine commas ending up in inappropriate places in the pen-dipping days.

But you are correct that there is no way to parse the sentence with any number of commas that makes it grammatical. Oddly, 2A appears to be the only part of the Constitution that resists clear interpretation; 7A is slightly awkward, but it does resolve with much less difficulty.

On the second point, wherefore dost thou accuse me of link-rot? I posted no links in this thread – can you direct me to my error?

I agree that it is the third "comma" that is most defective. I have no problem with the second comma, but EITHER the first comma OR the third comma OR both renders the sentence ungrammatical, and arguably turns the whole Amendment into a null-and-void covfefe. (And I'd like to see cites from DrDeth ["Grammar wasn't the same or as hidebound in 1787"] that such hideously placed commas were common in the 18th century.)

As for the link: I think you misinterpreted my remark. I was thanking you for the link you posted in 2015 which worked fine when I clicked it four years ago. But when I clicked it again today the .gov asked me for useless clicks. I tried archive.org — I don't know if that made much difference — and still needed extra clicks to get to the image. (Maybe it was my "cockpit error.") 97

[septimus]

Originally Posted by septimus

As for the link: I think you misinterpreted my remark. I was thanking you for the link you posted in 2015 which worked fine when I clicked it four years ago. But when I clicked it again today the .gov asked me for useless clicks. I tried archive.org — I don't know if that made much difference — and still needed extra clicks to get to the image. (Maybe it was my "cockpit error.")

Mea culpa.
Trying your 2015 link again, I see I can get to the high-res image with just 3 or 4 well-chosen clicks. Perhaps I was just a bad clicker earlier today. 98

[ralfy]

Here's what I gathered about 2A:

It had three goals: to support individual ownership of guns (which is based on the natural right to defend oneself), to allow states to form or maintain their own militias (to be used for many tasks, including policing and slave patrols), to allow the government to use the same militias to supplement the standing army (which several wanted to keep small) against various threats (hence, Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, with the latter calling for mandatory military service for males). At least that's I remember from what framers were debating on as it was being drafted.

Even during the Revolutionary War, some military leaders were complaining about a lack of training and equipment among some militias. After the War of 1812, more felt the need for a larger standing army and standardized training of reserves, as they were seeing the same among European counterparts. The same probably applied to the formation of police forces that were separate from military units.

With that, police forces and the National Guard were formed, and the military grew and relied more on reserves as it became more complex (with the growing use of the Navy, the formation of an Air Force, etc.) and mechanized.

In the end, 2A in terms of the second and third reasons became less relevant as the gov't relied on reserves and conscription rather than on militias but is still helpful because it can be used to justify mandatory military service.

That leaves the first point, which if based on the natural right of self-defense exists even without the 2A. 99

[Abatis]

Originally Posted by ralfy

Here's what I gathered about 2A:

It had three goals: to support individual ownership of guns (which is based on the natural right to defend oneself), to allow states to form or maintain their own militias (to be used for many tasks, including policing and slave patrols), to allow the government to use the same militias to supplement the standing army (which several wanted to keep small) against various threats (hence, Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, with the latter calling for mandatory military service for males). At least that's I remember from what framers were debating on as it was being drafted..

The 2ndA has no militia rights or powers flowing from it. The 2ndA has never been inspected or held to inform on any aspect of militia powers. There is no claimable militia right or power for the people, (see Presser v Illinois*) the states and certainly none for the feds to be found or claimed under the 2ndA. As SCOTUS has a said, the 2ndA has but one action, to restrict the powers of the federal government (US v Cruikshank**).

The only words of the Constitution the Court examines to direct its reasoning and understanding of the organized militia is Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16 and laws enacted under those clause's authority (e.g., The Militia Act of 1792, and state militia regulations).

In Houston v Moore, the Court states unequivocally:

• "The laws which I have referred to amount to a full execution of the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. They provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion. They also provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; leaving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training them according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The "full execution" of militia powers is only to be found in the body of the Constitution; the 2nd Amendment has nothing to offer and is ignored. There are no latent, undefined powers to be found in the 2nd Amendment that would allow it to be interpreted to authorize or protect militia activity of any kind by anyone.

Which as you say, leaves #1.


* Presser v Illinois:

"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."

** US v Cruikshank:

"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, . . . "

100