Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Yes, that's how everyone regards you.
That is not what Edslow said.....
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Yes, that's how everyone regards you.
That is not what Edslow said.....
Originally posted by: David Miller
That is not what Edslow said.....
No one here by that name.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Well, call me an English language nerd, but Thomas Jefferson was a highly skilled and eloquent writer, and he knew that when you begin a sentence with a restrictive clause, as he did with the Second Amendment, that clause restricts the meaning of the sentence to that which is referred to in said clause.
Consider that there were many ways he could have unequivocally said that individuals have the right to own and carry firearms. But he didn't do that. Instead, he referred to a militia in the restrictive clause, and said that the right to bear arms was collective ("the people"), not individual. That distinction is made clear--between collective and individual rights--in all of the founding documents.
The Supreme Court chose a broad interpretation of what was clearly meant to be a narrowly defined law/tenet. That was a horrible error--driven by conservatism and American gun love culture. It's directly caused tens, if not hundreds of thousands of deaths.
I don't consider disagreement with me to be reflective of a personality disorder, either. I do consider both MAGA and gun love to be personality disorders. And by gun love, I don't mean gun ownership; I mean gun fetishism and overestimating the personal and societal value of everyone being armed to the teeth. Surely, you've heard the fantasy about Clem and Ferd usin' thar huntin' rifles to fight a revolution against an unjust government. (The pathological nature of MAGA is self-evident, so I don't need to discuss it here.) It's nonsense, as even a Third World country, let alone the US, possesses enough sophisticated weaponry to destroy any rebel army/faction armed with only rifles and pistols. So we don't need, and shouldn't have, a gun locker in the rec room just in case we want to overthrow the government.
I agree with you that gun fetishism is a dangerous and toxic culture.
Jefferson did not author the second amendment Madison did.
What you view as a restrictive clause I interpret as a prefatory clause.
The people and the militia were pretty much the same. The definition of militia was basically every able-bodied man. The privileges and immunities clause would extend that right to women.
Jefferson did draft an article for the Virginia Constitution which is said to have inspired Madison "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
In the Federalist papers Madison stated how important it was for the citizenry to be armed.
Other framers of the Constitution wrote articles explaining that the second amendment affirms an individual right.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I agree with you that gun fetishism is a dangerous and toxic culture.
Jefferson did not author the second amendment Madison did.
What you view as a restrictive clause I interpret as a prefatory clause.
The people and the militia were pretty much the same. The definition of militia was basically every able-bodied man. The privileges and immunities clause would extend that right to women.
Jefferson did draft an article for the Virginia Constitution which is said to have inspired Madison "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
In the Federalist papers Madison stated how important it was for the citizenry to be armed.
Other framers of the Constitution wrote articles explaining that the second amendment affirms an individual right.
I agree that subsequent interpretations of the Amendment were that "everybody can pack heat." But that was at a time when people legitimately needed to be armed to defend themselves; even the larger cities had a nascent police force at best, and what professional military force existed was very small.
The "right to bear arms" concept was a leftover from medieval Europe, when it was a capital offense for a peasant to own a sword, and later, a gun. That of course was to prevent armed revolts. So people arrived on America's shores with the mindset that guns=freedom. And they were not entirely wrong. But I maintain that the Second Amendment doesn't refer to or grant that individual right. As I said, if that had been the intent, it would have been worded differently.
In any event, the societal conditions that generated that thinking no longer exist. The average person absolutely does not need a gun, and shouldn't own one. Law enforcement handles people's safety, just as the courts handle disputes and interpret the law. You don't whip out the ol' shootin' iron when Clem keeps letting his cows wander into your pasture. You don't resolve a traffic dispute by pulling out your shotgun and emptying both barrels into the guy's trunk. We're in a more civilized time.
If the overall thinking hadn't changed, there wouldn't be any gun control laws at all. But public safety has been determined to trump individual gun rights, except of course in the deep red goober states.
Parenthetically, did you know what the second leading cause of death on the Oregon Trail was, after disease? Gun accidents. The average Joe didn't then, and doesn't now, know how to use a gun. I would at the very least like to see a gun license granted ONLY after an applicant takes a rigorous safety training course AND a seminar in conflict de-escalation.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I agree that subsequent interpretations of the Amendment were that "everybody can pack heat." But that was at a time when people legitimately needed to be armed to defend themselves; even the larger cities had a nascent police force at best, and what professional military force existed was very small.
The "right to bear arms" concept was a leftover from medieval Europe, when it was a capital offense for a peasant to own a sword, and later, a gun. That of course was to prevent armed revolts. So people arrived on America's shores with the mindset that guns=freedom. And they were not entirely wrong. But I maintain that the Second Amendment doesn't refer to or grant that individual right. As I said, if that had been the intent, it would have been worded differently.
In any event, the societal conditions that generated that thinking no longer exist. The average person absolutely does not need a gun, and shouldn't own one. Law enforcement handles people's safety, just as the courts handle disputes and interpret the law. You don't whip out the ol' shootin' iron when Clem keeps letting his cows wander into your pasture. You don't resolve a traffic dispute by pulling out your shotgun and emptying both barrels into the guy's trunk. We're in a more civilized time.
If the overall thinking hadn't changed, there wouldn't be any gun control laws at all. But public safety has been determined to trump individual gun rights, except of course in the deep red goober states.
Parenthetically, did you know what the second leading cause of death on the Oregon Trail was, after disease? Gun accidents. The average Joe didn't then, and doesn't now, know how to use a gun. I would at the very least like to see a gun license granted ONLY after an applicant takes a rigorous safety training course AND a seminar in conflict de-escalation.
I agree it's not worded the best but I still feel the people who wrote it expressed that it did affirm an individual right.
When you read the first part as a prefatory clause it makes sense
Even if it meant to restrict to a militia the militia is literally every resident in the country. (At the time it was restricted to "free men" but now it would be everybody)
The vast majority of those that carry firearms are not using them in the scenarios you describe. A firearm is more likely to be used in an act of defense than aggression.
Police cannot always make it in time.
Under the Constitution we are not intended to have a standing army.
One of the benefits of an armed populace is it does make the government a little more hesitant to abuse them. Sure you're not taking out a tank or helicopter with an AR-15. Of course not. But I do think it slows down the tyranny a bit.
I shudder at the thought of what the current administration would be doing right now if it didn't have to worry about an armed populouce.
There may be a time when it becomes necessary to attempt to violently overthrow an oppressive government. If that time comes an armed populace is necessary.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Uh...thanks?
Drop Hallmark a line and see if you can get a copyright on greetings like, "Happy 20th Anniversary, Asshole!", "Will You be My Asshole?", "So You're 40 Years Old Today, Asshole!", etc. Might be something really lucrative there.
Good idea.......Again, I mean that in the most geniune manner.
If you're really interested in this issue, survey the SCOTUS findings re: individual gun rights. They've backed it repeatedly over time.
You have to understand the context to understand the 2nd Amendment. It was put in there because the British made the American militia give up their weapons when not serving.
The Second amendment was a response to that. They wanted an armed regulated militia to be ready to go at any moment. The modern version of the 2nd amendment was largely the result of a marketing campaign by gun manufacturers post Civil War
Originally posted by: Mark
You have to understand the context to understand the 2nd Amendment. It was put in there because the British made the American militia give up their weapons when not serving.
The Second amendment was a response to that. They wanted an armed regulated militia to be ready to go at any moment. The modern version of the 2nd amendment was largely the result of a marketing campaign by gun manufacturers post Civil War
Yes and what is the definition of the militia? It is every resident. A big part of the second amendment was to have an armed populace. The framers saw standing armies as as repugnant to Liberty.
The second amendment protected an individual right so that the populace would be armed and the militia would be strong.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Yes and what is the definition of the militia? It is every resident. A big part of the second amendment was to have an armed populace. The framers saw standing armies as as repugnant to Liberty.
The second amendment protected an individual right so that the populace would be armed and the militia would be strong.
And you think the term "well regulated" was put in there because they wanted individuals to regulate themselves?
I note that they used "well regulated" and not merely "regulated" which tells me the founders wanted the right to bear arms to be heavily regulated. The founders had common sense. Unfortunately the people Fetishize gus ownership and equate it with manhood lack any common sense.
