True, although because of the importance of the Bill of Rights, and their adoption so soon after the Constitution was adopted, I was using “framers” to include those who debated and wrote the first ten amendments. But all the cites I can find online use that to refer specifically to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, so that’s a good clarification.
My point was that they didn’t just scribble these things down and break early for lunch. Those amendments were drafted, debated, edited, re-edited for a few months. They were unlikely to have included the “well-regulated militia” part if it wasn’t meant to be a legally defined, actionable, enforceable part of the amendment. The idea that it’s just there to explain why the rest of the amendment is important I don’t find credible, especially since no other amendment contains such a clause.
There has been some analysis by historians that the point of the fourth article of the bill of amendments was to appease the southern states, to assure them that Congress would not summarily outlaw the militias they employed to keep the slaves in check. So, there may be a dark underbelly to the origins of the Second Amendment.
Typical liberal tactic – counter my claim that blue state deaths exceeded red state deaths by showing “adjusted” data loosely based on deaths per capita.
So, you want to use science, but only if part of the science is left out so that it agrees with you.
And if you find liberals shouting “RACIST!!!” at you, it’s pretty much going to be because you said something that could be possibly interpreted as racist. So far, I’ve not read anything that indicates you have, but I’ve not read the entire thread, either.
You’ll find that the tactics used by Redditors don’t really work all that well here.
Even if you do argue that the first part is just an explanation, it still necessarily limits the extent of the law. It remains valid only as long as the explanation remains valid. As states no longer need to call upon an armed citizenry in the case of an emergency, it is no longer relevant.
But, let’s say you disagree. The text also says that militia must be well regulated. Only the right to bear arms shall not be infringed–nothing says it can’t be regulated. As long as the people in general can bear arms, nothing has been infringed.
Any argument based on the idea you need a gun to protect yourself against bad people with guns is not upheld by the constitution. I’m not saying you shouldn’t. I think there is an argument for an armed citizenry. But it’s not from the Second Amendment. And there can be reasonable checks on it.
Just like there are reasonable checks on every other right given in the Bill of Rights.
This is incorrect. Do a Google search on infringe and you’ll find it means the following: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on, undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise.
Gun control legislation would accomplish most of these.
I think it’s been a few years since we mentioned that the Second Amendment was, fittingly, drafted by illiterates:
[QUOTE=The Second Amendment, as passed by the Congress]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Note the extra comma. Perhaps we should ask the grammar experts in GQ what, if anything, this sentence means. I think the presence of the comma means it’s the well-regulated Militia that shall not be infringed.
In that case, why mention of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the first place? The wording of the phrase itself establishes and acknowledges those rights, independent of the rest of the sentence.
And besides, isn’t it rights which most people are concerned about being infringed? And how exactly would one go about infringing a well-regulated militia? I’d think the “well-regulated” part would provide whatever “infringement” was necessary all on its own.
True on both counts. People on the gun control side, however, constantly seek to control them more and more, with the apparent goal of making all or most of them illegal the apparent end game.
Especially so in a country that has 350 million guns floating around already, and with most of its citizenry believing gun ownership to be their constitutional right.
Somebody’s being whoooshed and I think it’s you. I think other Dopers understood my post was jocular.
I was very clear that the sentence as worded is meaningless, even writing “the Second Amendment was, fittingly, drafted by illiterates.” IANAL, but I cheerfully concede that most courts would interpret the nonsensical sentence in a way that makes sense.
Just to satisfy idle curiosity, I would like to see a photo of the original to verify the claim that the extra comma started as a “fiber artifact.”
I wish to heck I could go back in time and ask just exactly what they intended by the Second Amendment. If I could, phrased in quasi-18th century language it would be something like this:
"Sirs; the argument has been put forward that the provision forbidding the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms refers to those under discipline: those duly called to muster and under the command of an officer of the militia. That the keeping and bearing of arms without such public duty may be entirely proscribed. If such was not your intent, why then does the wording of the Amendment seemingly imply a requirement, a condition upon which the keeping and bearing of arms is dependent?
I think other Dopers understood my post was jocular.