Remind me again, which side of the debate was parsing the text?
It is the pro-gun side that has parsed away atext concerning militia’s to mean that every little girl has the right to carry a six-shooter to school.
Uhm, no. SCOTUS* has “parsed” the text to mean there is an individual right. It is the other side that must make the case against that interpretation.
*As well as Obama, a “constitutional scholar” often cited on this MB.
You miss my intent. I don’t think anybody believes the first part of the amendment means a requirement to have a militia. I believe that it reads that way. It’s still in the constitution, and someday a court could re-interpret in that manner. There’s just been no reason to consider it at all.
My bad. That should have said the opposite. The 2nd hasn’t prevented restrictions on some arms.
Sure, but Heller was a phenomenally stupid decision (that part, at least). Nobody seriously believes that individual amendments have preambles.
For a definition of “parsed” that includes “invented”, perhaps. The *Heller *decision was one of the baldest displays of result-based decision-making in the Scalia era, no mean feat. But yes, that is the state of the law today; that self-defense is contained in the penumbras and emanations of the militia clause.
How does one “make a case” against somebody else’s fantasies and lies when they’re devoted to a goal and impervious to any reasoning or precedent that does not lead to that goal?
TriPolar, your claim that “necessary” does not entail “required” is a bit odd.
Abatis, your claim that the lack of any anti-gun action by Obama to date is evidence that there will be in the future is even more odd.
It’s because there’s two parts to the first part of the amendment. It doesn’t say outright that the security of a free state is necessary, just that a militia is necessary for that security.
We could ask Obama-- he’s supposed to be a constitutional scholar, and he believes there is an individual right to bear arms.
But this is all immaterial. I have no doubt in my mind that the US, being the gun loving country it is, would easily a pass a revised 2nd amendment that emphasized that individual right. And few Democrats would have the balls, or the conviction, to vote against such an amendment.
Where did he say that?
“…and many Democrats would support such an amendment”, I’m sure you meant to add.
That’s what I meant by “the conviction”, but you’re right, I probably didn’t phrase that well.
Many Democrats would support it, and of those who didn’t, not many would have the balls to vote against it.
Do you think that if any Republican opposed it they would have the balls to vote against it?
I’ve never been convinced that the Republicans have any real convictions WRT support of the RKBA. To me, they’ve always been the passively anti-gun party with the Democrats being the actively anti-gun party.
He’s now a politician first, of course, and anything he says on a political subject such as this has to be understood in that light.
Scumpup, on what factual basis do you call the Democrats “actively anti-gun”? And what do you mean by that term?
It would be pretty odd to claim otherwise, wouldn’t it?
The NRA and even more reactionary groups are using this as a anti-Obama rallying point, they claim that teams of federal agents are just waiting for Obama to be re-elected to start house to house confiscation of guns, that Obama has simply been hiding his radial anti-gun politics until he got re-elected.
Now, it’s true that Gun Control is a liberal plank, and the Democrat party is the more liberal of the two. Thus when gun control legislation occurs, it more often comes from the Dems than the GoP.
But currently the Dem party is not “actively anti-gun”. At worst it’s “laid back slightly hoping for some minor anti-assault weapon bills”. Of course we know those are just political footballs.
This entire thread is arguing about what that actually means though.
Then quoting Latro
[QUOTE=Latro]
"Of course you can write it clearer.
In order to have a well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, the people must have the right to keep their militia weapons at home and bear them, so they can train with them."
[/QUOTE]
Same exact response I gave to Czarcasm. That’s your own interpretation of that, whereas others have different ones. That was my exact point.
I doubt the temptation could be resisted to slip in a few weasel words like “lawfully own and carry arms”, or “public right”. :rolleyes:
Yes. That’s why my statement sounds odd. I was just discussing the way literal interpretations could be taken from the text. It would be most bizarre to end up trying to justify the need for security.
What’s that?
Large USA political party, it’s candidate just won re-election for President.
No such thing as the Democrat Party as far as I know. You have a cite?