It’s notable that you think gun use by the military is a right. Betcha most of 'em would call it, and all the duties it entails including gun use, a responsibility.
They would neither have nor not have it. The Constitution is silent regarding civilian ownership.
You’re referring to those of us who’ve actually *read *the whole thing? Including the parts about suppressing insurrection and other needs for a ready military capability? We’re the noncontextualists? :dubious:
A gun also required far more skill and training to use then too. You couldn’t just pick up a gun, switch the safety (if it has one) and start firing.
You had to measure out some gunpowder, pour that down the barrel, the some wadding, then a ball, and you had to make sure you packed it just right, or it wouldn’t fire, or it wouldn’t clear the barrel, or it would blow up in your face.
Okay.
You… just did.
SMH
No one says they contradict each other. They compliment each other. You are the one that is saying that half the amendment is irrelevant.
If the only justification that you have is that the second amendment means that you don’t need a second amendment, then there is no justification for the second amendment either. I’d rather find a way to reduce gun violence without having to revoke 2A, but if you keep insisting that nothing can be done without doing so, then you are going to manage to convince people that that is a necessary step.
Please keep it up. Thank you.
No, that’s not it at all. I wasn’t twisting anything. I was pointing out that the military has different function than civilians. And military does not have the right to access any weapons they want. The have access to the weapons they need. Does an enlisted man have a right to carry a gun on the base?
Are you in agreement with Will that civilians should have the right to access the same hardware as the military does? I would hope not, but I cannot parse your response in any other way.
The people that had religious objections to war had them because they objected to violence at all. They had no desire to keep and bear arms.
The point is not that you have to join the militia to have a gun, but if you have a gun, then you are part of the militia. When they come through, and call for all the able bodied men, they are calling for you.
I agree, except that it is the history of the amendment and the time that the amendment was created that we are discussing, and the reasons for the amendment, and the types of weapons that were in use at the time the amendment twas written, and the fact that the constitution does not call for insurrection against the govt, and it is the modern interpretations of it being for self defense and against govt tyranny that the 2A defenders are using.
It does strike against the idea that the point of the guns is for target shooting or home defense, though. The constitution explicitly gives people the right to have guns at hand, but doesn’t bother ensuring that they can use them for anything gun owners wants to use them for. Lends credence to the idea that now that civilian militias are a thing of the past, the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant.
And, perhaps more amusingly, it suggests that bullets maybe aren’t protected by it. If all the right is intended to do is get the populace to bring their own guns to parties the government chooses to throw, then there’s no particular reason those guns should be functional when not put to that use.
Quit squirming. The question wasn’t about if they contradict, but if they can be considered in isolation from each other. Given that one is a subordinate clause modifying the other, and would have no reason to exist if it didn’t matter, how do you claim that is a defensible view?
Given that your reading of the text is plainly result-driven, how would you reach your desired result without that text?
Once again: Pretend that’s been done. What comes next for you? You’ve been asked enough times that there’s a default inference ready and waiting, as you know.
I really never got why people like you think some “subordinate clause” argument would mean anything to anybody other than people who already frantically agree with you. If I declared “given how important bread is, the right to grow and grind wheat shall never be infringed”, according to you I didn’t leave a loophole on growing wheat for beer. Because you don’t like beer.
Because it says what it says, not what you wish it said. That’s why.
No, as I said I rarely agree with Will. I think that, as with all of the rights we, as a society can and should regulate them for the greatest good (while honoring and protecting the spirit of the right under discussion), and as often is pointed out regular civilians don’t need things like fully operational tanks (though if I were rich…) or atomic bombs.
There is some cross over between what the military uses and what civilians can use (the actual round used in actual military grade rifles, for instance is the same one used in many civilian versions), and those should be evaluated individually with an eye towards both public safety and honoring the right. Until and unless we, as a society decide to vacate the amendment granting that right of course. Which we can do, as we can with all the other rights listed in the BoR and Constitution.
Not the point. They had the choice…they COULD choose to keep and bear arms and they did not have to be in the militia…it wasn’t dependent on being in it to gain the right, merely being a citizen made the right protected. Having an armed population, in the opinion of the authors enabled the use of militia for the defense of the nation, which they saw as a good thing.
No, you didn’t have to be in the militia to have a gun, nor did owning a gun automatically make you part of the militia. In many places it was expected that every able bodies citizen would be in the militia but it was never a requirement at the federal level wrt the Constitution. What your neighbors might think or what local ordinances there might be is another matter, but owning a gun didn’t require you to be in the militia and you didn’t have to be in the militia to own a gun or ‘keep and bear arms’.
Oh, I agree…I’m not saying anything about insurrection against the government or anything like that. There is a lot of modern baggage on both sides that have been used in these types of discussions that the folks who wrote the thing would be frankly scratching their heads over.
What it says is that they granted the right of bearing arms; they gave a reason why they granted that right. But they didn’t specifically limit that right to that reason. Even though you desperately wish they had.
Would you agree that an argument that, since the reason the amendment was written was written is no longer relevant, it would be reasonable to consider amending it away?
Then that clause doesn’t add any actual content. You are still, “desperately”, trying to avoid explaining why they’d even have put it in then, especially given all the other discussion of the need for a military capability elsewhere in the document.
No, the only reasonable conclusion, one which you are “desperately” avoiding, is that they meant what they said, and that the subordinate clause does indeed modify the main clause, just like your middle school Composition teacher explained.
There is another issue that was going on with the Founders - States were founded as little countries with the Federal government as sort of - well, a confederacy. Unfortunately, we discovered that didn’t work and scrapped it, but the states wanted the right to succeed, by force if necessary, and to defend themselves from other states. Thus state militias. (We tried that confederacy of states thing again, and you can ask Jeff Davis how well it worked the second time around - turns out that you sort of need a Federal government with power to allocate resources sensibly or you have uniforms in South Carolina warehouses and men in rags from Tennessee - the CSA lost for a lot of reasons, but one was its lack of a strong central government and infighting among the states). (The EU is trying it now - with perhaps more success, but not complete success).
Keep in mind that until the incorporation of rights in the 14th amendment, you didn’t get your individual rights from the state government. States had every right to control the press, or guns, or religion. And since that time, rights have been selectively incorporated - and the second amendment was only incorporated in 2010!
We resolved that issue with the Civil War - states don’t have the right to succeed (as much as Texas would like it - or everyone else would like it on behalf of Texas), and states don’t have much interest in invading each other.
A well regulated Militia, no longer being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, may now be infringed.
Of course.
Exactly. They thought that having a militia was important, and they felt that protecting the individuals right to keep and bear arms was a good way to ensure they would have a strong militia. They also weren’t going to go into excruciating detail as to all of the reasons they thought the citizens should have a protected right to keep and bear arms, just underscoring the one they felt (from their perspective, and by extension the country’s) was the most important. As it was, they truncated a bunch of other things out of the final version that were in the drafts, probably for the sake of brevity.
What they said was the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They didn’t say “if you’re in the militia it shall not be infringed”.
Absolutely. That’s why we have the system we have.
Yay! Now all we have to do is replace about two thirds of Congress and the House with extremely liberal people who also have relatives who died in a recent school shooting.
Let me get back to you…
It would just be better to vacate the thing with a new amendment the way we did the 18th instead of trying to rewrite it or modify it if the right to keep and bear arms is felt by the citizens of the nation to no longer be necessary as a protected right (wouldn’t mean no arms at all, btw…lots of things we have in our society aren’t protected rights yet we still have them). This would open things up to more stringent regulation that, today, would be against the spirit of the right (like banning whole categories of weapons…handguns, say, or all magazine or clip fed weapons).
The thing is, I already mentioned earlier in this thread that I think the 2nd amendment is pretty ridiculous. But certain people can’t seem to accept the fact that it can be ridiculous to our modern ears but still be exactly what the grand poobahs meant at the time.
As some of those reasons were to put down slave insurrections, and to be able to fight off the native residents of the continent, those were not enumerated. As some of the other reasons were protection from wild animals and hunting for food (both necessary in that time), those were also not enumerated.
Well, yeah, but the 21st amendment did have words in it, the 18th wasn’t just repealed. It mostly just repealed 18, but also covered transport of alcohol. Plus, I thought it was amusing wordplay.
I wouldn’t mind having some sort of amendments that did protect the individual’s right to self defense, and possibly other utility uses.
The problem with 2a, as written, is that it doesn’t make any sense, so you can make various interpretations of it. It’s also an absolute, “shall not be infringed”, so it makes it very difficult to make reasonable limitations without running afoul of it.