Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:33 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post

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?
No way to make it the same as common 2019 syntax I agree. Resisting clear interpretation, I don't agree. Which again would include looking at what was elsewhere written at that time, and contemporary or earlier similar type clauses in colonial and state documents. And I still see no validity in the argument to ignore those things because 'that was a long time ago' or 'they were a bunch of old white male racists' or whatever else. No reasonable jurist even solidly on the left of the mainstream is going to try argue that it makes no difference what we can otherwise tell that they meant. Again 'originalism' is a matter of degree, but beyond reason IMO to say 'just try to interpret in a vacuum, ignore all other evidence'.

The relationship between 'militia' and 'people's right' is actually pretty clear in the context. It meant to point to a specific reason the people had the right to bear arms: so the states could organize those already privately armed civilians into militias as necessary, the federal constitution was not voiding that state right. But there's no logical way from those words, in their context of the time, to get to the idea that the people's right to bear depends on the militia actually being called up, or that a feature of 'well regulated' could be to entirely cancel the people's right to bear arms.

The concepts and thought behind the words could well be judged 'obsolete' at this point. Which again might be a reasonable argument to repeal the amendment, not a reasonable argument to ignore it or pretend it says something basically different.

But again I'm always puzzled why this is supposed to be so immediately important when a modest, constitutional (as far as any court precedent to date) measure like a federal ban on the sale of new box magazine semi-automatic rifles (political name 'assault weapons') doesn't have the votes to pass.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-11-2019 at 09:37 AM.
  #102  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:03 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
...as the personal right to keep and bear arms doesn't require the militia part, unless one ignores the actual intent of the authors...
The 2nd Amendment is ONE sentence with ONE meaning. You can't separate it into clauses and then assume the truth of each individual clause. And I don't care how many people come out with how many arguments as a way to get around the fact that clearly the amendment means the people have the right to own arms for the purposes of forming a militia when necessary. That is it, and that is all. It's right there in the #$@#$%@$% amendment! If the founding fathers had meant for other concepts to have meaning in the amendment, that they wrote about elsewhere, they would have included them.
  #103  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:11 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
That is it, and that is all. It's right there in the #$@#$%@$% amendment!
There's actually more, elsewhere in the same Constitution, defining the purposes of the militia and how it is to be well-regulated. Those also have to be explained away somehow to backfill under the desired individual-right position.

In no other part of the document, however, did the writers think they had to go so far out of their way to tell us what they meant.
  #104  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:12 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
The 2nd Amendment is ONE sentence with ONE meaning. You can't separate it into clauses and then assume the truth of each individual clause. And I don't care how many people come out with how many arguments as a way to get around the fact that clearly the amendment means the people have the right to own arms for the purposes of forming a militia when necessary. That is it, and that is all. It's right there in the #$@#$%@$% amendment! If the founding fathers had meant for other concepts to have meaning in the amendment, that they wrote about elsewhere, they would have included them.
And the fact that it changed, radically, several times in committee really means nothing, because all along it had one meaning from one sentence and one single idea! Brilliant! You've resolved centuries of debate by just reading the thing and expounding your awesome opinion, based on your clear text reading and your feelings! Thanks! Really appreciate you pointing this out! We'll just forget that the founding fathers (or the specific authors of the amendment at least) wrote, extensively on this very subject, since if they REALLY meant something else they would have put that down (well, we'll also forget that they DID...and that what was originally written was modified through several versions in various committees until it was collectively agreed upon as a compromise) exactly that way!

Man, thanks for the input. Definitely was VERY helpful...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #105  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:17 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
There's actually more, elsewhere in the same Constitution, defining the purposes of the militia and how it is to be well-regulated. Those also have to be explained away somehow to backfill under the desired individual-right position.

In no other part of the document, however, did the writers think they had to go so far out of their way to tell us what they meant.
Oh...you were serious earlier when you brought this up. I think most folks ignored it in sympathetic embarrassment for you, or thinking you didn't really think this was the killer argument you obviously think it is. Damn...this is awkward!

Thing is, defining what the purpose of and who controlled the militia (the various states) has zero to do with whether they intended the 2nd to be an individual right. No matter which side you are on in this 'debate'. Probably why no one, even on your nominal side, decided to engage you on this point from earlier. Like I said, sympathetic embarrassment. Sort of like how I feel about Fiddle Peghead's latest post. It does underscore the disconnect between those who understand even the basics of this 'debate', and those who, sadly, don't have a clue.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #106  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:20 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,359
What they said has no bearing on what they meant. Gotcha.
  #107  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:23 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What they said has no bearing on what they meant. Gotcha.
Sadly...and as is self evident...you don't. But c'est la vie.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #108  
Old 09-11-2019, 10:40 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
In no other part of the document, however, did the writers think they had to go so far out of their way to tell us what they meant.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
And the fact that it changed, radically, several times in committee really means nothing, because all along it had one meaning from one sentence and one single idea!

[Nonsensical ranting deleted]
Re the bolded part: Either you are have a distinct lack of reading comprehension, or you know very well I never said any such thing. Which is it?

You ignore what was eventually decided upon to be put into words as the 2nd amendment. The Constitution goes into immense details for all manner of things. Cleary if the FFs wanted the populace to be able to own arms for other issues, that could have been included. Yes, the FFs had ideas and they wrote about them extensively. Did I miss the footnotes where these writings were referenced in the Constitution itself?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 09-11-2019 at 10:43 AM.
  #109  
Old 09-11-2019, 11:42 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Oh...you were serious earlier when you brought this up. I think most folks ignored it in sympathetic embarrassment for you, or thinking you didn't really think this was the killer argument you obviously think it is. Damn...this is awkward!
I see you are also violating the standards of Great Debates when responding to Elvis, as you did when responding to me. Why not just stick to the discussion?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 09-11-2019 at 11:42 AM.
  #110  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:02 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,696

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I see you are also violating the standards of Great Debates when responding to Elvis, as you did when responding to me. Why not just stick to the discussion?
Do not junior mod.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Re the bolded part: Either you are have a distinct lack of reading comprehension, or you know very well I never said any such thing. Which is it?
Calling into question others' reading comprehension is not appropriate for this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
I get "neighborhood gang". And for "resisting tyranny" I get "killing cops".

That's the right some folks proudly claim to have.
This is basically trolling. I recommend you dial back your penchant for snideness in all threads going forward as it's destructive to discussion and I have little remaining patience for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
It does underscore the disconnect between those who understand even the basics of this 'debate', and those who, sadly, don't have a clue.
Dial this back too.

****

How many threads on general second amendment discussions shall we have at one time? One less as I'm closing this one. This other thread was active first so feel free to post there.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 09-11-2019 at 12:04 PM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017