Way to misrepresent the OP. I have no problem with people who have multiple avenues of argument. It is pulling the “God” card after all the discussion about the 2nd Amendment has gone on, stating in effect that “It doesn’t matter because Nature and/or God gave me this right anyway.”
Here I am discussing the fine points of Constitutional law for pages and pages, and in the end the other guy suddenly turns it into a religious discussion. While I would love to see and perhaps get involved with a discussion about Natural/God given rights, tossing it in as a trump card in a discussion about the 2nd Amendment irks me slightly.
A very logical position, except that people are notoriously illogical. One domestic airliner crash that kills 200 people is more horrifying to the public than the constant dribble of traffic deaths that add up to tens of thousands annually.
- If I truly believed that I might open a thread about that topic.
- I don’t truly believe that, sorry.
OK - “irks me slightly.” I guess I can see your point. For example, when writing a legal brief, I will present in descending order the various arguments I advance.
One problem might be that internet discussions are less formal/structured than legal briefs. On the internet, people often do not “show their entire hand” right off the bat - whether arguing gun rights or anything else.
Are you saying that people will generally say that you “won” the constitutional interpretation argument, leading them to switch gears? Or do they just “shift the goalposts”, saying the Const argument is irrelevant b/c they have OTHER arguments.
I can imagine that either would be “slightly irksome,” but they don’t impress me as unique to gun rights, terribly surprising, or more than “slightly irksome.”
When the 2nd amendment was written, did people BRING THEIR OWN GUNS to militias, or were they issued guns BY the militia?
I don’t really know, but I would imagine they brought their own firearms, unlike today where military issues the guns.
I’m not sure I follow.
Say you hear me criticizing a decision made by the President; and that, if asked about this, I say that I believe I have the right — as well as the responsibility — to speak out against injustice, advocating for worthy principles in the abstract and my fellow man here and now. Speaking truth to power, if you will. Telling it like it is, as it were. It’s my right, I say, to stand up for what’s right.
If you ask me about the First Amendment, well, then, sure, I’ll answer to the best of my ability about it; but if you then ask me about free speech, then I may get a little misty-eyed as I admit that, yes, while it does my heart glad to see the Amendment gets read as I’d hope, I’d of course still hold it to be my right and responsibility to speak up for what I believe in regardless.
Same thing for, y’know, the right to vote, not to mention that whole thing about not being a slave, and so on, and so on: I’m glad they’re reflected in Amendments, but I’d still be talking in the language of rights if (a) those Amendments weren’t there any more, and (b) I had to start advocating for them to be added in. But I’ll honestly tell you what I think those Amendments say, even while thinking the rest.
Why would the Second be any different than the First, or the Thirteenth?
Depends on when we are talking about, but as a general rule the militia consisted of every able bodied (freeman, generally white though sometimes not) male over the age of 17, and they were expected to provide their own arms. This was a bit of a problem in several ways (logistics, funding, general readiness and being ‘well regulated’, i.e. well ordered and able, etc), which is why the combat effectiveness (or lack there of) was so varied…and, mainly, why militias were not relied on and there was a greater emphasis on regulars later in the war (or in the various pre-revolutionary wars).
Not that it really matters except to those who insist that the authors of the 2nd really just meant to give a right to only those in the militia, or that this was the only reason they had to protect such a right with an Amendment. This was only A reason, not the only reason why they wanted to carve out a protected right of each (freeman, male) citizen to keep and bear arms. There were a lot more reasons they wanted to ensure this was one of the pantheon of protected rights they specifically bound the government too.
To me, the ‘inherent problem with 2nd Amendment debates’ is the lack of understanding of even the basics of the history that is so often evident by people engaging in them. That and the level of disingenuity and dishonesty by many in these threads. Plus, the fact that this ground has been covered so many times. Basically, as a counter point to the OP, the folks who really don’t care about the history or the context that the 2nd was written in, yet want to argue for their own interpretation of what the thing says based solely on their (modern) reading of the text…slanted in the way they want, of course, to say what they want it to say. To me, that is the height of the ignorance this board is SUPPOSED to be about fighting, but really isn’t, especially on this particular subject. Really, it’s no great mystery why the thing was written (poorly) as it was, or what the authors were really after or trying to say. They spelled it out in myriad other texts on the subject, in letters and personal diaries and other written works. REALLY, the issue is that it says what it says…that the authors wanted a personal right to keep and bear arms, protected from government abuse. Yeah, some of them did think, at the time, that militias were the way to go and were important because they saw first hand what government or private armies did in Europe and didn’t want any part of that. So, they chucked that in the Amendment in a later draft, after discarding multiple other, in many cases clearer versions for the muddle we have.
I have no issue with folks who think that it’s an anachronism and want to change or even remove the thing. Perhaps today we don’t need a protected right to keep and bear arms at the federal level…or maybe not at any level. That’s a matter for the people to decide. What I hate is the dishonesty or the ignorance I seen in these threads. Basically, we have the means to get rid of or change the Amendment. The thing is, what folks who want to reinterpret it out of existence REALLY want is to do it without the work, by fiat because they kind of know that the large majority of their fellow citizens don’t agree with them. So, they want to do it, for our collective good of course, by just changing what it means or says. And that’s just dishonest and slimy, IMHO. It also cuts to the heart of our process, and basically my thought is if you could do it for the 2nd, then why not someone else doing it for another protected right down the line? If we can just reinterpret a right to mean exactly the opposite of what the authors wanted then I think when the worm turns, a lot of the folks in these threads who are advocating that for the 2nd will be a bit surprised how that works out for them on other rights they DO care about.
THAT is, IMHO, the crux of the ‘problem with 2nd Amendment debates’, especially on this board. Happily, it really doesn’t matter, as the folks on this board who do this silly shit are just howling at the moon, as, in reality, it’s us who is out of step with the majority of citizens on this one. While it’s true most citizens in this country are all for gun control, it’s a lot less who don’t want or think we have or should have a protected right to the choice to keep and bear arms. And I seriously doubt that is going to change in my lifetime. We shall see I suppose.
I think the the absolute right promoting segment is a narrow one because all-in-all in isn’t that effective. Those arguing for gun control won’t even offer counter-points, they will simply dismiss it and the person saying it.
Actually, I hear this the ‘absolute right’ type stuff coming from anti-gunners; usually it the old “so you think you have the right to own a nuclear bomb”? Of course the reply from any gun rights person arguing from reason is NO, but then, for the anti it is, Ahh-Haaa, you admit controls on the 2ndA is OK, so the assault weapon ban I want is constitutional!
I agree, the arguments on the words and definitions are red herrings. The devolving of argument you see among pro-gunners is just a final fall-back because the right it isn’t granted by those words, thus the right does not depend on the words.
The problem is, anti’s aren’t interpreting the “2nd Amendment”, they are “interpreting” carved out words, dissected out of the Amendment, filtered through modern definitions. They interpret the words (e.g., “well regulated”) as the limitation and then wedge them back into the 2ndA That’s where the frustration comes from, their “interpretation” is entirely a mutation of fundamental rights theory, giving certain words right creation status, thus conditioning power.
Your sentence I quoted above would be significantly altered if the last word were changed from “interpreted” to “worded” . . . Then such an argument wouldn’t be dishonest or a waste of time.
Well, I always do. I bang the “the right is not granted by the words, thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the words for its existence” drum like a coke snorting monkey. That is as much a legal truth as anything anyone can say and it is obvious that it defeats most of the anti-gunners [legal & constitutional] arguments because the only arguments that they come back with is either saying retained rights is BS or the Constitution just doesn’t matter anymore.
So, saying the words don’t condition and qualify the right isn’t really saying the 2ndA doesn’t matter, it’s just saying that since the 2ndA isn’t the source of the RKBA, you really can’t argue the words of the 2ndA have any conditioning action on the right.
Now, the scope (not existence) of the right is dependent upon the ***interpretation ***of the 2nd Amendment – but there is a narrow beam to walk there.
Primarily, the object of the Amendment, why the framers secured the pre-existing, never surrendered right, [the perpetuation of the general militia principle], does inform us as to what types of arms are protected. This is where the Miller protection criteria comes from; problem is, that’s exactly where the lower federal courts went off the rails, taking Miller’s explanation of the “collective” object of the Amendment, and applying it to the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms – and we suffered 66 years of the various “collective” right perversions until Heller re-righted the constitutional ship.
I am a very strong proponent of the right to keep and bear arms. And when I debate the issue, I never bring up the 2nd Amendment. I think it’s a terribly-worded amendment. But even if it was wonderfully-worded, I still wouldn’t bring it up, because I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of my right to keep and bear arms.
That’s because there is an actual philosophy that predates the US constitution.
QFT. I often reflect back to when I started debating gun rights vs gun control back in 1993 on USENET in talk.politics.guns. Back then the law was on the gun control side and it was a challenge arguing the individual right interpretation.
But back then we really had debate, honest to goodness reasoned, supported debate.
It was glorious and tons of fun.
Now, people just know gunz R bad and nothing can change that.
So what? Lots of philosophies are proven wrong over time. Because societies change. Ideas evolve. How long should we cling to anachronistic philosophies for nostalgic reasons?
We shouldn’t cling at all. If it REALLY is an anachronistic philosophy that is out of step with society as a whole, we should change it or get rid of it. Happily, the folks who wrote the thing gave us a mechanism to do that. All you need is to convince the majority of voting citizens that it is as you say, and anachronism, and that we should modify or, better yet, get rid of it. I have zero problem with folks doing that.
The real issue, however, is that isn’t what has happened or what is happening…as we can see in the threads on this subject on this board. Rarely do I see someone who wants to get rid of the 2nd say let’s use the system as it was intended to get rid of that sucker because the public certainly wants it that way. And we all know exactly why that is…because, it’s not actually a popular stance that the majority, or even a really large minority of the US public holds. Which means that, in reality, it’s not an anachronism at all…at least not yet. I think as a society we are moving in that way, and, again, I have no problem with folks on your side pushing for that, in trying to change the publics perception or stance. I have a big problem with trying to do this all by fiat, however…which is the reality of how the anti-gun folks have worked. Change the meaning, then you don’t have to do all that pesky work or actually ensure that the public DOES think they don’t need or want such a protected right anymore.
I do not make the case that it should just be ignored by some sort of fiat. More effective controls and limits of fire arm sales in the short term would be a good start. However, I’m 100% for changing hearts and minds over the long term, in order to go about dismantling it in a legal and binding way, per the Constitutional mechanism provided.
Why single out gun owners? I find many people on the other side of the argument don’t give a darn about about how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as they simply think no individual has the right to own firearms. Are they dishonest as well? And if you remember your high school English classes you’ll remember having to write persuasive essays. You’ll recall when trying to be persuasive you’d use a variety of arguments to support your case.
Until you can use so-called reason to change a critical mass’s opinion. Or seize control of power and use the violence of the state to ensure compliance.
You question the premise that the past ought to influence the present and the future. The idea that sovereignty is derived from the governed may seem anachronistic to the left but thankfully the majority in the US don’t feel that way.
It should embarrass the right to claim the virtue of sovereignty with respect to gun rights, while historically and presently denying sovereignty to women, minorities and LGBTQs. Fortunately, the left has successfully used reason to change critical mass opinion on the latter. I have good reason to hope that in time it will be equally successful on the former.
You may like to pretend that the right was always for universal sovereign rights for all, but you have no right to do so in light of all the evidence (philosophy) to the contrary. In the spirit of this OP, the right should at least be honest in admitting that their appreciation for sovereignty is really about: 1) their personal right to gun ownership, and, 2) having to extend the same consideration to progressive issues.
But that is the core of every debate on guns. That people have a fundamental right to a means of protecting themselves. The 2nd Amendment is simply an expression of that right in the form of a written law. The belief that law should be immutable is a bit absurd, particularly as it is an “amendment” (by definition, a change to an existing document).
I think gun debates are as futile as abortion debates. The problem is that the opposing sides disagree on the basic facts. With guns, one side believes that there is a God-given natural right to own guns and that the first half of the second amendment should be sharpied out of existence. The other side (mine) recognizes no individual right to bear arms, that right is valid only in the context of an organized militia or in modern times, the National Guard. With abortion, one side believes that a zygote is a human, the other does not. The sides will never agree on the basic facts, so any discussion just makes people angry and doesn’t change any minds.
Correction (bolded):