Finally a serious question about 2nd Ammendmet

[Life_Positive]

Isn't this one of the issues regarding the 2nd Ammendment? As it uses comma's the sentaqnce has to be taken as a whole. If there was a full stop after free state, the meaning would change. One set of US supreme court Justices might interprut it one way, another group a different way.

The 2nd Amendment easily has some of the shoddiest and most frustrating wording out of the entire Constitution.

 

[SuprSalor]

All sounds very . . . what's that word . . . sensible.

Attention all pro-gunners: Without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment, please explain what, if anything, is wrong with the Canadian gun-control system; for extra credit, explain, if applicable, why what works in Canada would not work in the U.S., or why it would be a bad idea in the U.S., without invoking or mentioning the Second Amendment.

Not knowing the real nuts and bolts of the Canadian gun control issue, The gist of what was just outlined sounds reasonable. The reason it won't work in the U.S. is the reason any type of gun ban won't work. There are far to many weapons out there. It would be an impossible task to find and confinscate every single firearm.

 

[Lancecastor]

The 2nd Amendment easily has some of the shoddiest and most frustrating wording out of the entire Constitution.

It was before the InterWebs, so there was no GrammarBuddy.

 

[Life_Positive]

Not knowing the real nuts and bolts of the Canadian gun control issue, The gist of what was just outlined sounds reasonable. The reason it won't work in the U.S. is the reason any type of gun ban won't work. There are far to many weapons out there. It would be an impossible task to find and confinscate every single firearm.

More generally, the major issue in the United States is that strict gun laws / disarmament would, in purely pragmatic, non-ideological terms, produce exactly the same kind of clusterfuck as Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Institutional stupidity and incompetence combined with immeasurable opportunity for illicit profit, plus all the associated graft, corruption, and violent crime.

Granted, that says nothing about weaker laws like registration and purchase requirements, but disarmament would be a logistic nightmare.

EDIT: Also, I should throw in that this may very well be idiosyncratic to the culture of the United States. There are many effectively disarmed, developed societies that largely do not suffer from this.

 

[Life_Positive]

It was before the InterWebs, so there was no GrammarBuddy.

But those guys were so goddamn eloquent most of the time! Seriously, even their smack talk makes our civil discourse look childish.

 

[Lancecastor]

But those guys were so goddamn eloquent most of the time! Seriously, even their smack talk makes our civil discourse look childish.

Revisionism.

They were gadflys, carnies, hucksters, opportunists....kite fliers, silversmiths, poets, "thinkers", inventors....fucking hippies with no real careers or prospects other than peddling their fancy fey French form of Republique to a bunch of simple, hard-working Fundamentalist Protestants.

...who hated paying taxes to the Brits. So they hooked up with the French.

A straight-up cult scam really, when you think about it.

 

[Life_Positive]

Revisionism.

They were gadflys, carnies, hucksters, opportunists....kite fliers, silversmiths, poets, "thinkers", inventors....fucking hippies with no real careers or prospects other than peddling their fancy fey French form of Republique to a bunch of simple, hard-working Fundamentalist Protestants.

I've read them.

In their original language.

 

[sufisaint]

I did not read the thread but I would say it was (besides for militia to balance governmental power) the frontier nature of the country, there was still an ongoing conflict with Indians and also many towns had no law enforcement or judges..it was right because it was a necessity for survival and in Virginia it was required by law that all males able and qualified to be armed.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I did not read the thread but I would say it was (besides for militia to balance governmental power) the frontier nature of the country, there was still an ongoing conflict with Indians and also many towns had no law enforcement or judges..it was right because it was a necessity for survival and in Virginia it was required by law that all males able and qualified to be armed.

That logic doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny however. The rights were specifically things the government might take away more or less at a whim. There is no reason why the government would leave you unarmed against enemies like the indians. that would be stupid. Not to mention the same frontier nation would have made horses and various livestock very valuble for the same reasons you listed above and yet a man has no right to own a horse or cattle.

 

[sufisaint]

That logic doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny however. The rights were specifically things the government might take away more or less at a whim. There is no reason why the government would leave you unarmed against enemies like the indians. that would be stupid. Not to mention the same frontier nation would have made horses and various livestock very valuble for the same reasons you listed above and yet a man has no right to own a horse or cattle.

5th Amendment .... "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

livestock is considered property...

 

[Sean Renaud]

5th Amendment .... "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

livestock is considered property...

Only if already own it.

The 2nd, at least in most people's minds, means the government can't prevent you from obtaining firearms. The fifth doesn't entitle you to a house and a cow it just means the government can't just take it from you without just compensation. Which is interesting all on it's own because if they outlaw something doesn't it's market value immediately become zero?

 

[Lancecastor]

I did not read the thread but I would say it was (besides for militia to balance governmental power) the frontier nature of the country, there was still an ongoing conflict with Indians and also many towns had no law enforcement or judges..it was right because it was a necessity for survival and in Virginia it was required by law that all males able and qualified to be armed.

Agreed, plus, for the Founders, it was a populist notion as well as a handy backstop against any potentially loyalist military factions.

Like Mali, except different protaganist/antagonists

 

[KingOrfeo]

That whole Live Free or Die thing.

BUG-EYED MONSTER: Give me your weapon!

REDNECK: You can have my gun when you pry my cold, dead fingers off of it!

BEM: Your offer is acceptable.

[grabscreammunchmunchmunch]

-- Men in Black

 

[1sickbastard]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

I'm curious as to why it is a right to carry a weapon

Personally I see firearm possesion as a privilege then a right, and so does my country

so why is it a right in the states.. what is it about carrying a gun that gives itself the societal equivalent to free speech

just curious

I think it's mostly a historical/cultural difference.

A lot of Americans see a well armed citizenry as an indispensable part of a free society.

I think it's the idea that freedom starts with the individual and flows upward to the gov't instead of freedom being a privilege possessed by those in authority to be granted to those subjects it deems worthy.

The philosophy comes from "Enlightenment" thinking on the essence of the 'natural' rights of individuals (see John Locke and Thomas Hobbs) and the nature of the social contract (Rousseau).

 

[coastal-boy]

But, it isn't.

I never said it was. But I didn't live in 1791.

 

[coastal-boy]

Isn't this one of the issues regarding the 2nd Ammendment? As it uses comma's the sentaqnce has to be taken as a whole. If there was a full stop after free state, the meaning would change. One set of US supreme court Justices might interprut it one way, another group a different way.

This is exactly the issue. The commas are used to clarify the ORIGINAL point, which is that a well regulated militia has the right to exist.

It will change. We are already seeing the effect of the change in demographics. The GOP does not have a chance of winning a Presidential election until 2024. Every one of the conservative Supreme Court Justices will be replaced by then.

 

[DevilishTexan]

well, from me at least

I'm a Canadian, we dont have the 2nd Ammendment

I'm curious as to why it is a right to carry a weapon

Personally I see firearm possesion as a privilege then a right, and so does my country

so why is it a right in the states.. what is it about carrying a gun that gives itself the societal equivalent to free speech

just curious

Because we have politicians that like Marie Antoinette, feel we should eat cake. Problem is, even the cake is rancid.

So to keep this from happening the forefathers of the US (or so they're called) still being pissed off with the British monarchy and that whole "cake thing" figured it was probably a pretty good idea for the citizens of this new country to be able to not only defend themselves but be able to take back our country from tyrannical maniacs (like we have now) in the event they overstep their bounds.

They've only been doing it for the past oh, 100 years but unfortunately Communism (in a nutshell) has infiltrated the American way of life to such a point that people just don't give a shit anymore as long as they have their big screens and microwaves.

Fortunately some people are still patriots and are ready to take this country back at the first opportune moment. When that happens I do truly feel sorry for the Leftist, Liberal scumbags that have helped to bring it to that point.

 

[coastal-boy]

Because we have politicians that like Marie Antoinette, feel we should eat cake. Problem is, even the cake is rancid.

So to keep this from happening the forefathers of the US (or so they're called) still being pissed off with the British monarchy and that whole "cake thing" figured it was probably a pretty good idea for the citizens of this new country to be able to not only defend themselves but be able to take back our country from tyrannical maniacs (like we have now) in the event they overstep their bounds.

They've only been doing it for the past oh, 100 years but unfortunately Communism (in a nutshell) has infiltrated the American way of life to such a point that people just don't give a shit anymore as long as they have their big screens and microwaves.

Fortunately some people are still patriots and are ready to take this country back at the first opportune moment. When that happens I do truly feel sorry for the Leftist, Liberal scumbags that have helped to bring it to that point.

In other words, you don't understand why our Founding Fathers used a comma instead of a semi-colon or a second sentence. That's OK. Education isn't for everyone. If calling yourself a patriot makes you feel better about it, I'm OK with that.

 

[DevilishTexan]

In other words, you don't understand why our Founding Fathers used a comma instead of a semi-colon or a second sentence. That's OK. Education isn't for everyone. If calling yourself a patriot makes you feel better about it, I'm OK with that.

It's morons like you that put so much weight into shit that really doesn't matter that have brought our country to where it is today. No, I really don't give a rat's ass about proper punctuation so if it bothers you that much go see a shrink about your anal retentive behavior.

 

[coastal-boy]

It's morons like you that put so much weight into shit that really doesn't matter that have brought our country to where it is today. No, I really don't give a rat's ass about proper punctuation so if it bothers you that much go see a shrink about your anal retentive behavior.

It is called the Constitution. It guarantees dumbfucks like you equal rights. You should respect it, proper punctuation and all.

 

[DevilishTexan]

It is called the Constitution. It guarantees dumbfucks like you equal rights. You should respect it, proper punctuation and all.

Nice retort. Take that to bed with you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many people do not understand the use of a comma and what it means. This includes the Conservative members of the Supreme Court who determined in 2008 that this right also extended to the individuals. Amazing that this country went from 1791 to 2008 with a different interpretation.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is about the States having the rights to form a Militia, and that this militia is not composed of "professional soldiers", but of individual members of the state. This militia is separate from any controlled by the Federal Gov't, especially the President. In order for this to happen, the Federal Govt cannot infringe on the rights of an individual (for the purpose of belonging to a militia) to own a weapon. Today, these words are taken by certain segments of our population to mean every individual has the right to own a weapon. This simply is not the case, else our Founding Fathers would have used a semi-colon or even added a second sentence.

Hope this helps a little.

Obviously, you don't understand the use of the comma and what it means. You would have us believe that the federal government through the vehicle of the Second Amendment recognizes and secures the right of citizens to bear arms in self defense of their corporate organization as a state or nation while simultaneously withholding the right to bear arms in self defense of themselves individually from wherever illegal aggression may come. This seems legally rational to you and fully in keeping with the specific intent of the Amendment's authors? A legal right to bear arms in defense of the state to the point of death, but not so to defend self, home or family?

If that be the case, then perhaps you could tell us how it came to be that every single state managed to codify an individual right to self defense, including the circumstances justifying the infliction of deadly force, in such a blatant contradiction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You clearly need some assistance from the Supreme Court via Heller:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

***************

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

*********************

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”

**********************

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.

***********************

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.

**********

Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.

**********

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

Okay, listen, I am trying very hard to raise the quality of the discussion here and this entire bullshit dance with Lancecastor isn't helping things.

First of all, the entire concept of rights is not a hard, incontrovertible fact. Even acknowledging this basic idea is pretty damn unpopular, given that rights are seemingly central to Western political thought and absolutely vital to the legal system of these United States.

All ideas, words, concepts, etc, are historic in nature. What this means, simply, is that they aren't necessary. Everything human beings "know" and express through language is an invention of human intellect and creativity that originated in a specific point in space and time. There was a time before words representing the idea of "rights" existed, just as there was a time in the distant past where no words or ideas existed at all. It is readily possible to imagine a world in which such and such words and ideas were never conceived of at all.

What this means, simply, is that the entire theory of Natural Law and with it rights MAY be complete bunk. They are immaterial abstractions at their best, and their substance owes itself entirely to the extent to which they are held up by the actions of individuals. Laws, of course, are excellent examples of such actions, in so far as they are actively enforced.

However, the United States was founded on the premise of these rights because they were part of the dominant ideology of the time and place. They are historical artifacts enshrined in law, enforced by the raw power of human action. The institutions of the United States government take this premise seriously, as do most of her citizens. Even abstract, non-existent things can be made powerful by people.

In short, it is a right because we say so.

Legal realism, as another theory, proposes that laws are only fundamentally meaningful in proportion to their enforcement. Thus, if a law is not respected and enforced by the people and its constituent institutions, it is no law at all. Rights may be envisioned the same way, in that we have them because we wield power to maintain them. They could just as easily disappear by the same means.

Very well stated. However.....

I believe you have allowed the artificiality of the construct to unfairly minimize the significance of the moral and legal philosophies to which language gave birth. If we can take note of prehistoric man's instinct for survival and his ensuing development of the necessary skills to secure food, water, shelter and personal protection from the natural elements and other predators, it is easy to see how his evolving intellect might elevate the pursuit of those necessities to the status of "natural" or inalienable rights.

That doesn't mean he was wrong.

 

[Life_Positive]

Because we have politicians that like Marie Antoinette, feel we should eat cake. Problem is, even the cake is rancid.

So to keep this from happening the forefathers of the US (or so they're called) still being pissed off with the British monarchy and that whole "cake thing" figured it was probably a pretty good idea for the citizens of this new country to be able to not only defend themselves but be able to take back our country from tyrannical maniacs (like we have now) in the event they overstep their bounds.

They've only been doing it for the past oh, 100 years but unfortunately Communism (in a nutshell) has infiltrated the American way of life to such a point that people just don't give a shit anymore as long as they have their big screens and microwaves.

Fortunately some people are still patriots and are ready to take this country back at the first opportune moment. When that happens I do truly feel sorry for the Leftist, Liberal scumbags that have helped to bring it to that point.

First, there's no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said that, likely because she didn't.

Second, the French Revolution happened after the American revolution, meaning that the War for Independence was still unprecedented as far as the Monarchs were concerned.

Third, the colonists were already armed, did not need the Revolution or the Constitution to tell them they could be, and they have stayed that way for one reason or another ever since. Someone posted an excerpt from a history book earlier that actually did an awesome job of briefly explaining the motives for the War for Independence. I guess what I'm trying to say here is go read a fucking book.

Fourth, I'm literally speechless (still got my fingers though!) that you just conflated ubiquitous consumer Capitalism (along with the accompanying psychological assault of mind-fuck marketing) with Communism. I'm sure if you actually had any idea what the flying fuck a Communist actually is, you would recognize that the few that found a foot hold in the United States during the first half of the 20th century got their asses handed to them on all fronts. More often than not by the people they were trying to "help."

Fifth, if by "take this country back" you mean get themselves shot, the Revolution can't come soon enough and absolutely will be televised.

Sixth, the forefathers of the United States were, all of them, to the last man, Leftist Liberal Scumbags.

Seventh, go get fucked by a steer.

 

[coastal-boy]

You clearly need some assistance from the Supreme Court via Heller:

Difficulty reading I see. Here is the conclusion of what you cited:

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.


Thank-you for proving my point: The Founding Fathers intent with the Second Amendment was to prevent the elimination of a State Militia.

 

[Life_Positive]

Very well stated. However.....

I believe you have allowed the artificiality of the construct to unfairly minimize the significance of the moral and legal philosophies to which language gave birth. If we can take note of prehistoric man's instinct for survival and his ensuing development of the necessary skills to secure food, water, shelter and personal protection from the natural elements and other predators, it is easy to see how his evolving intellect might elevate the pursuit of those necessities to the status of "natural" or inalienable rights.

That doesn't mean he was wrong.

Not my intention at all, seeing as my formal education largely consists of both history and philosophy (with a strong predilection for politics, ethics, and law on one hand and linguistics, epistemology, and phenomenology on the other), I have nothing but the utmost respect for the power of thought and words.

Noting that words and ideas are artifacts does not diminish them, but rather elevates human artifice to the highest reverence possible. We are responsible for the creation and maintenance of meaning and value, we are biologically empowered to act according to the way of thinking we create and embrace, and from this magnificent capacity has flowed the whole of human history.

I am certainly familiar with the origin of natural law and the "states of nature" described by various thinkers of the Enlightenment. Personally, I am of the opinion that our biology and evolutionary heritage is responsible for not only providing the boundaries that enclose all potential human thought and action, but also may be examined in the pursuit of moral values (Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape comes to mind).

However, it is also impossible to neglect that the ideas on which this conversation is based are, as I mentioned earlier, spatially and temporally historic. Further, they are in diverse company, good and ill. In fact, they triumphed over rather powerful competing ideas expressed by institutions such as the Catholic Church and violently enforced by Monarchs with armies. These ideas may have been suppressed and ridiculed to the point of oblivion. They may have been forgotten entirely (like so many other ideas, languages, and cultures of which we have only the faintest knowledge) had the "war of ideas" gone differently.

Plato and Aristotle may well have been a few more burnt libraries away from being lost to history altogether. If there was a Christ, a terribly high probability of infant mortality could have produced a very different 21st century. Might others have arrived at similar ideas through imagination and rational thought? Perhaps, certainly.

But perhaps is all we get. We're born into a time and place where the likes of John Locke and John Stuart Mill had their day. We could be 7th century Chinese Taoists, having a very different type of conversation despite having roughly the same biological faculties. I personally find this point of view both enormously humbling and empowering, but it makes it difficult for me to take a great many people very seriously.