joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Unlike most of the others that have been bashing you, you have made a serious effort to actually engage on the subject, rather than the 'religious belief' that is destroying the actual right to firearms in this nation. I may disagree with you on things, but wished to point that out to you....
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
If you go back to that basic sentence structure, the 1st two parts of the amendment are dependent clauses, also refered to as a prefatory phrase. In terms of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could stand alone. That is, it would mean the same thing with or without the clauses. The "militia"clause and the "security of a free state" are simply reasons given for the amendment, regardless of how you define them. I'm not sure how you get 4 parts in the amendment. I only get 3. It's also clear, that the reason the framers put that amendment into The Bill Of Rights is they did not trust governments or standing armies. The Second amendment was intended to be the final check on a tyrannical government. It doesn't make any sense that it could possibly not refer to the people i.e. individuals.
The four parts as I see it:
A ) A well regulated militia...
B ) ....being nessissary for the security of a free state.
C ) The right to bear arms,...
D ) ...shall not be infringed.
"A" explains what has this right specifically. As I stated before, back in the 18th and on into the 19th century, this nation did not have organized and local police forces, nor a real standing military (the civil war being the turning point towards a standing military). As a result, the militia was seen as fulfilling both of those roles. I think they wanted to make sure the militia was specific in its intent and purpose, rather than 'leave it open to interpretation'. Whether you agree with my central premise, I do think you can agree that the 2nd amendment is very open to interpretation by many Americans.
"B" is the 'who' of the militia. Why is the militia formed? What is their stated purpose? A pile of lone individuals are nothing against a decently organized group of individuals. We can run experiments at a local paintball area. Place eight guys who won the national competition against fifty 'random' people on the other team. Who will win? We could do this with airsoft on up to and including live fire weapons. Good squad leaders, with well trained troops, will have a huge effect against a massive 'zerg' three times their number.
'C' is the understanding that individuals, as part of a militia and within good standing, could have their duty weapons and gear with them, in the event they were called up for an emergency. It has nothing to do with persons with firearms that are not part of 'a well regulated militia'. That would be handled under the 10th amendment to the states.
"D" Back in the 18th century, the founding fathers were concern if not frighten by the prospect of a government (local, state, or more importantly, federal) becoming tyrannical. If any of these three entities could call up the militia into duty to handle problems, could they also order them to lay their arms down, as a prelude to a tyrannical government taking over? The answer is 'no'. The only way the militia could disarm was by the vote of the militia itself.
Now I agree the 'Right to bear arms, shall not be infringed." could be its own amendment. However, that amendment is allowing....anyone....not just responsible and accountable persons with arms, to obtain them. They didn't allow crazy individuals to have guns. Nor blacks in the southern states. Or Indians, or those that could prove a threat to the welfare of a village, town, city, state, or the whole country. That, and I think the founding fathers wanted 10 amendments to the bill of Rights, and not 11, since there was 10 commandments (why break from a good thing?).
Like the other amendments, some are specific to the individual and some assume the individual by way of the masses. And still others are specifically for the masses. I used the Affordable Care Act as an example of something that was not clearly understood nor used: definitions. The 'Federalist Papers' offers some idea on the matter (that would be the 9th paragraph), but leave it very open to interpretation. Modern laws and amendments have not just the wording, but definitions and examples of the 'spirit' of the law. There is no way a lawmaker could write a law that would handle every possible case. So there is the 'spirit of the law' or 'what the lawmakers had in mind when they wrote them....specifically speaking'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
I read all your postings on this subject and try my best to follow the logic but the more stuff you post the more confusing it all sounds. It's really much simpler than your making it out to be. For almost 200 years, be you democrat or republican, you would have been laughed at and had rotten veggies thrown at you for suggesting the right to bear arms is not an individual right. With modern progressive liberalism in vogue, it doesn't seem to be a laughing matter anymore. How ever it is that you want to spin it, your wrong.
Take groups of people from the 18th century to a modern day firearm range. Show them the truly awesome and destructive firepower of ten guys with semi and/or fully automatic weapons. Then have them sit down with modern medical, emergency room doctors, and have explained to them what such weapons do to the human body. After that, take them into the inner cities with much in the way of gang violence. Then sit them down and seriously ask them for their views. Those people would be absolutely in shock. It would be hard for them to understanding how Americans have become more like savages rather then an advanced people. With all this knowledge, skill, and amazingness of America; that we allows such awesome firepower in the hands of some crazy 20 year old to go shoot up an elementary school full of little children, would have been the final straw.
They didn't understand how warfare would advanced as much as none of us saw how well the internet would effect this nation. How many of them would be laughing after I dropped 90% of their militia with a well modified M-4 in a dozen seconds? How many of them would throw rotten veggies my way after that?
I see something 'down the road' that is truly scary. And most people can not understand that. I would rather this nation gets off its current path long before we get there, and get on another. I'm not going to explain that one, because its WAY to complicated. It takes from our understanding of psychology, economics, history, and a dose of wisdom. Maybe I just don't want to see tens of millions of Americans tear themselves up down the road in a bloody civil war over stupid reasons.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
"There is not profit in lying (like the gun industry), nor votes in lying (like the Republican/Tea Party), or viewership in numbers in lying(like conservative media), and one has to experience it in person which you could tell if they are lying (unlike websites devoted to misinformation).".
That sort of dialog isn't really usefull. When I was in high school they weren't exactly teaching your version of the Second Amendment. They taught what you refer to as lies. The gun industry aside, most educated gun owners themselves would not agree with your revisionist history.
Oh, they didn't teach this stuff when I was back in high school either. And I lived just down the road from North Bridge in Concord, MA.
Who has the most to gain from the interpretation being different from the 18th century? That's the bold part you made. Its logical, specific, and to the point. I stated my premise as being something that disappeared as time progressed. When we developed local police and/or country sheriff departments, there was not much use for individuals making up a militia. With the US Military being what it is, the militia really did not have a need to serve in the nation's defense. From this stand point, we have an amendment that has largely been phased out due to circumstances and cultural changes in the make up of the nation. Each of the original states have crazy laws that no sane law enforcer would try to push on the public. Yet, they are still on the books (i.e. its illegal in Mass to have sex, unless its missionary). So the 2nd amendment's definition was simply changed, rather by means OTHER than Article V in the US Constitution.
The 3rd amendment is rather outdated as well, yet how often does it come up in the US Supreme Court? There isn't much profit to be had in changing the definition when the US Government sets up military bases big enough to house the troops. There is huge amounts of money to be had with convincing people that the 2nd amendment is an individual right while ignoring the first sentence entirely. So I brought up the idea to BamaD (I believe) on the police ignoring the first 2/3rds of the 8th Amendment and reinterpreting the remaining 3rd anyway they want. BamaD doesn't like authoritative individuals abusing power (and I can understand and respect that). Notice he didn't have a comeback to that? If we allow ourselves and/or the government to ignore a section of one amendment, could the same be done for others?
Most gun owners are going to be jumping through more restrictive rules and regulations after the next major and massive shooting that makes Sandy Hook look like a double murder. Gun owners would be wise to not fuck with other Americans the way the gun nuts do already. I recognize not every neighborhood is safe, and there are circumstances for a person having a firearm for self defense. I have problems trusting them, when it comes to light they are blowing their heads off due to Depression. I've gone through Depression. I would not wish that terrible illness on any American in good standing with the law. Not even Tea Partiers! An like those in Los Angelos talking about 'the big one' in light of all the minor earthquakes rumbling; the time to discuss good 'firearm laws' is NOT immediately after a mass shooting. But such a discussion will take place should something worst than Sandy Hook take place. And there will be ALOT of very mad Americans . When people are mad, they do dumb and unwise things.
An that's when things will really spur out of control in this nation. The laws are pushed through by a people going through agony and torture. An I predict those laws will not do the right things, given what we know already. 'Feel good laws' that push Americans more apart then together.
|
RE: Duty to retreat... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread