Which is you trying to get around the 2nd. And you realize it. What you want is for a re-interpretation of the 2nd that matches what you want. Yeah, it’s been tried. I find this tactic…distasteful so I’ll leave it there.
That isn’t getting around the 2nd, but *restoring *the obvious and historical (until recently) meaning of it.
Speaking of interpreting it to match what you want, that is …
Does it seem unlikely that they’d say “What part of ‘well-regulated militia’ do you not understand? We *told *you what it was for. No, we didn’t bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is *wrong *with you people?”
No, it isn’t. Why even bring this up? You disagree, you know I disagree, we’ve had this discussion before…like, oh, 100 times perhaps. Your mind is made up and you aren’t going to change it. You aren’t going to change my mind, I know you are wrong. There is no point. Yet you felt the need to beat this dead horse yet again because…?
Yeah, it does seem as though things aren’t a big deal, unless they are a big deal to them. Note the earlier comments on the 737 Max, that keeping them in service would have had no benefit, even though pulling them out of service has cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
People like to smoke, but have put up with restrictions on smoking due to the safety of themselves and others. People like to not have their airline go bankrupt, but are risking it in order to protect the safety of others.
But when it comes to something that they want, that they like, they will fight and cry and scream about their toys being taken away.
Is the utility that a gun owner gets from having 50 rather than 7 rounds without having to reload any greater than the utility that I get from smoking after a meal at a restaurant?
They’d say, “Of course the states can regulate guns, that’s what a well regulated militia means.”
I’m told anybody’s guess is as good as mine as to what they might say/do. My best guess is: “This wasn’t at all what we had in mind! What the fuck is wrong with you people?!” I’m confident that if people are honest, that’s their best guest too.
If you’re telling us you refuse to consider the possible validity of other viewpoints, including one that prevailed for most of our history until recently when a 1-vote partisan vote supported their party politically, that says all it needs to, doesn’t it? Meanwhile, this is still a Debates forum, not a “Nuh-uh!” forum.
And they’d add “We fucking told you what the militias are for, too: ’ to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.’ Really, that’s in the actual text. Now how the hell did this idea you have get started that it’s to *enable *insurrections?”
No, I’m telling you that I considered them in the 100’s or 1000’s of posts on this subject in the past and found them to be bullshit. And, fairly obviously, YOU DID THE SAME FUCKING THING. As we’ve covered this ground over and over, there doesn’t seem much point. But, what the hell, why not? Let’s hijack this thread to yet another 2nd Amendment discussion. Mods don’t seem to care, so why not?
I’ll lay out why you are wrong. It won’t be anything new to you. Basically, it would be kind of silly for the FF to create a right and then so limit by making participation in a militia mandatory to get said right. The term ‘well regulated militia’ doesn’t mean today what it meant in the 18th century, where ‘well regulated’ mean ‘well provisioned and equipped’, i.e. they had guns, ammo and other equipment. The people who actually wrote the thing wrote other stuff that you and others ignore that talks about WHY they thought a personal right to keep and bear arms was important. Their views on this are clear, even if the Amendment isn’t. Lastly, as has been pointed out numerous times, the final Amendment went through a series of drafts and a committee that changed the original meaning, especially to folks (like you) who don’t want to bother doing any research on this to see what the people who wrote the thing actually meant. Those drafts pretty clearly show how it got to what we have today, and also what the original intent actually was.
Then we have the fact that it was never, officially, interpreted by the USSC in the past. They kicked the can. There were a lot of de facto interpretations that were used for years. This time, they DID actually make a call, so that’s where it stands now.
As to your “Does it seem unlikely that they’d say “What part of ‘well-regulated militia’ do you not understand? We told you what it was for. No, we didn’t bother repealing it after we gave in and established a standing army and it became moot. What the hell is wrong with you people?”” the real answer is whoever you asked that would look at you like you are either crazy or don’t understand words, since YOUR interpretation of ‘well-regulated militia’ is not the same as someone from the 18th century, just as it is with a lot of words. It’s a stupid question that relies on the ignorance of your audience (and perhaps your own) to not grasp that languages change over time, and the meaning of words and phrases equally change over time. In your case, I know this has been pointed out to you many times, and you’ve ignored it, so I’m going to go with willful ignorance. I’ll give the others chiming in on your side the benefit of the doubt.
Colion Noir calls registration lists “pre-confiscation lists”
Fine. You started it. Gun are now pre-murder weapons.Is it that they enjoy smoking, or that the addiction is again being sated?
No, they would roll their eyes or look on you with pity and say “We wanted to grant a personal right to keep and bear arms, and part of the justification for that was so we’d have a strong militia, a ‘well regulated’ militia where the people in the militia would have, you know, guns and stuff. But the POINT of the RIGHT was so that our citizens would have arms, unlike our British cousins who took them away whenever they wanted because they didn’t’ have a right to keep and bear arms. You know, as we wrote in all those other papers you were also supposed to read. I mean, come on guy…didn’t bother reading anything else besides the Amendment??”
Right, that would be silly.
But leaving it up to the states to regulate guns and the powers of the militia is not.
Funny how they never mentioned that keeping guns could prevent the tyranny and oppression of slavery.
there were many people who were involved in writing the thing, with many different perspectives and opinions, just like us. That some wrote why they wanted it doesn’t mean anything as to what it ended up being. There were some who didn’t think that people should have a right at all to guns, why do you not consider their perspective as valid as those who wanted it as a personal right?
Yeah, it came out the sausage maker. In the end, it was a compromise, that neither gave the federal govt the authority to regulate guns, nor asserted the things some wanted as far as personal rights of possession and use.
It couldn’t be interpreted any differently until after the civil war, as it did not bind the states, only the fed. And it got kicked down the road because it was pretty obvious that it wasn’t meant to be binding on the states, and the incorporation of the amendments made that hard to reconcile.
Yeah, basically the militia at the time was mostly to prevent the indigenous people from protecting their land, and the enslaved people from winning their freedom. Not something that most militia members would be willing to acknowledge today.
Or perhaps, it is simply a disagreement in interpretation, and stupidity, ignorance, or disingenuous motives have nothing to do with it.
Yes
Enough!
Time out. All of you. Given the ten or more reports from everyone on all sides over the last day or so I’m declaring this thread dead.
You may start a new one tomorrow morning. Not before. Everyone cool off and come back fresh in the morning.
This is a warning for failure to follow a moderator’s instructions in post #418.
If you do decide to return after the embargo has been lifted, my instruction stands for those future threads as well.
[/moderating]