Tweet
Originally posted by BlackCat
I might be nitpicking a bit, but doesn't this say that only men are allowed to carry arms/own a gun ?
I might be nitpicking a bit, but doesn't this say that only men are allowed to carry arms/own a gun ?
-
No, it says that in the 18th century only men actually belonged to the militia. Obviously that could change over time. Militias in the 1870s carried rifles instead of smoothbore muskets, and so even the collective right applied to rifles, rather than to 18th c weapons only."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber -
it was Madison orginally, but it was revised several times in Congress, which is how it ended up the way it is.Originally posted by KrazyHorse
None, so far as I can tell.
Don't blame me because Jefferson (?) couldn't ****ing write his way out of a paper bag..."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It still doesn't say what you want it to say.
THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE IS:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
NOT:
the right of the people to keep and bear such arms as is necessary to this end shall not be infringed
How is
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
not an operative clause?"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Yeah, but that ruling is from 1939 - has there been a newer including women in the militia ?Originally posted by lord of the mark
No, it says that in the 18th century only men actually belonged to the militia. Obviously that could change over time. Militias in the 1870s carried rifles instead of smoothbore muskets, and so even the collective right applied to rifles, rather than to 18th c weapons only.
To be true, those that wrote the 2nd probably was aware that weapons would improve, but I seriously doubt that they were able to fathom the idea of women doing military service.With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
I'm choosing to read what it says, unlike you. Implication is fine for ordinary speech. The law means only what it says.Originally posted by lord of the mark
If you choose to clip the second clause out of the sentence, and not actually read the whole sentence.
Because oranges taste good, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Because fire is hot, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
etc.
They all have the same ****ing effect. NAMELY THAT:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
The original version still didn't say what you're claiming it did.Originally posted by lord of the mark
it was Madison orginally, but it was revised several times in Congress, which is how it ended up the way it is.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Amazingly enough, they didnt anticipate every idiotic misinterpretation that could be put on their words, and insert wording to prevent it.Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It still doesn't say what you want it to say.
THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE IS:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
NOT:
the right of the people to keep and bear such arms as is necessary to this end shall not be infringed"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
How does that clause impact on the restriction of ownership of weapons?Originally posted by lord of the mark
How is
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
not an operative clause?12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
It's not a misinterpretation. IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION WHICH IS SEMANTICALLY CORRECT.Originally posted by lord of the mark
Amazingly enough, they didnt anticipate every idiotic misinterpretation that could be put on their words, and insert wording to prevent it.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
I'm not sure. At a minimum, as I said, the constitution isn't a mutual suicide pact.Originally posted by lord of the mark
So Dan, do you agree with KH that the 2nd Amend protects the right to hold nuclear weapons?
I have to say you're looking like a BS artist on the plain text of the 2nd amendment, though. Such sophistry is done routinely by judges on the other hand, so I won't hold it against you too much.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Amazingly enough, they didnt anticipate every idiotic misinterpretation that could be put on their words, and insert wording to prevent it.
So much more reason to be very precise when wording an amendment such as the 2nd.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven WeinbergComment
-
They never wrote anything like the above, because it would have been absurd - oranges have nothing to do with arms. The clause they did insert DOES, and is relevant. A fortiori given ambiguities in the next clause (what is meant by 'the people", and what are "arms" for this purpose)Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm choosing to read what it says, unlike you. Implication is fine for ordinary speech. The law means only what it says.
Because oranges taste good, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Because fire is hot, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
etc.
They all have the same ****ing effect. NAMELY THAT:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How does that clause impact on the restriction of ownership of weapons?
The amendment is an assertion of the right to form a well regulated militia. The religious clause is a limitation - the states may form militias, the federal govt may NOT prevent that, but that does NOT give the states the right to force Quakers et al to serve. Any other construction of the previous clauses, and it makes no sense whatsoever."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
They never wrote anything like the above, because it would have been absurd
Given that they passed an amendment to the Constitution which, if you are to be believed regarding your historical interpretation, makes a rather fundamental error in wording, I'm not sure that I'm going to put it past them to say this.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Again, don't blame me because the people who wrote it were apparently drunk when they did so...Originally posted by lord of the mark
The amendment is an assertion of the right to form a well regulated militia. The religious clause is a limitation - the states may form militias, the federal govt may NOT prevent that, but that does NOT give the states the right to force Quakers et al to serve. Any other construction of the previous clauses, and it makes no sense whatsoever.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
Comment