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.
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.
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.
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…
Oh…you were serious earlier when you brought this up. :smack: 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.
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?
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?
Calling into question others’ reading comprehension is not appropriate for this forum.
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.
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.