I must clarify that this is not about gun control Anybody who interprets this as a thread about "gun control" is making an incorrect assumption. My arguments in favor of gun control are in other threads about that topic. Not here. This is only about the 2nd Amendment as written. Which, I hold, has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. One way or the other. The demonstration that the 2nd A, as written, refers to a well regulated militia has been demonstrated here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/ If you have something to say about that, do it in that thread. Or you can do it here, and I'll respond to you in that thread. Enough introduction. (Necessary to pre-empt well known strawman arguments) Many confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with an individual right to own weapons. Here I demonstrate (or linguists demonstrate, I just summarize it) that this part is in reference, not to hunting, not to sports.... not even to self defense; but to a military scenario. As historian Garry Wills put it, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” Using two databases, COFEA (Corpus of Founding Era American English) and COEME (Corpus of Early Modern English) https://lawcorpus.byu.edu/, which compile basically all the documents written around the time the Bill of Rights was written, linguists searched for all occurrences of the words "bear" within 4 words, left or right, or "arms" to find out what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" would mean to any moderately educated American of the period. Eliminating sentences that obviously had nothing to do with the matter (such as "the bear tore away his arms" or "she couldn't bear looking at his arms" ... and similar) they found that only 2% related to anything other than military. And even those required a qualifier to indicate that it was not military. For example, in some state constitutions where the phrase that appears is something like "...bear arms for the defence of the state and for personal defence". With no qualifiers, the phrase always referred to a military setting. Though they mention a sign outside the church that mockingly said "Please do not bear arms inside the house of the Lord" https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42613 So, bottom line: when the 2nd A was passed, it was clear in the minds of all those who approved it, that "the right to keep and bear arms", with no other qualifiers, implied "arms" as used in a military scenario. In their mind this didn't mean hunting, or sports or even personal self defense.... it meant a right to protect the freedom of a free state because a well regulated militia was necessary. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42613 There is no doubt that at the time, most Americans (our founding fathers included) valued owning weapons. In no small part because of the mistrust of a standing army. But the 2nd A didn't limit nor did it affirm an individual right to own weapons. It simply didn't address it. It only addressed the afore mentioned right to bear arms.
The right......etc. etc... is followed by "shall not be infringed". The word "shall" means it is unconditional. It does not say they have to belong to the militia nor does it say the militia has to exist at that time.
Of course it was referring to military action and prevention of a totalitarian state of enemy nation — thus the words “necessary to the security of a free State”, “well regulated” and “militia”. The notion that any and every untrained person should be able to buy an arsenal from the WalMart down the road is, quite frankly, absurd.
Yes, a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. Here is a quick test that even you should be able to do, since you believe “shall” means unconditional for everyone — should 14 year olds be allowed to purchase and own firearms? Should domestic abusers? Should felons? Should people with severe mental illness?
The right of individuals to bear arms was guaranteed in the Constitution so the citizenry could protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Our founders knew all governments become tyrannical given enough time, even the one they newly created.
It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No if, ands or buts. At that point, it becomes questionable as to whether that right can be taken away from those individuals.. It is a right that most of us are willing to give up.
For the people in a well regulated militia, correct. Double speak You cannot argue “No if, ands or buts” and then say “but not these people”... well you can... but it is blatantly hypocritical and a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. So you believed there are limitations and “shall” isn’t absolute, yes? Fascinating that you think rights can be “given up” for others.
That same argument could be applied even if there was a well formed militia. The fact that it could be applied in both cases makes it a non-starter in trying to apply it when there is no militia.
Can we all agree felons, child molesters, terrorists and the walking dead can be denied the right to bear arms (while the rest of normal society keeps its own rights I mean).
It isn’t a well formed. It is a well regulated. Meaning these people could absolutely be excluded. I see you have moved to dishonestly editing down posts because they destroy your narrative: “So you believed there are limitations and “shall” isn’t absolute, yes?”
I could quote the whole thing and it still comes out the same. "shall not be infringed". There is logic for this interpretation. Obviously they intended citizens to provide those arms themselves. If they waited for a militia to formed, you would have citizens who owned no arms and would not be familiar with them. Whether you look at it from a logical standpoint or from an linguistic standpoint, the result is the same.
If the majority agrees can rights be removed? I throw trump supporters, religious extremists, and AntiFa in with your above list — can we agree none of those groups should be allowed to “bear arms”?
Exactly! So don't leave out WHAT it is that shall not be infringed just because it doesn't fit your dogma.
There you go. “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.” All my previous arguments apply to the full text.
Well regulated absolutely means this If you have to delete peoples post it already means you have no argument
Antifa and BLM can be classified with terrorists I'm sure we all agree. That leaves Trump supporters but we can agree to disagree on them?
Nope. All or none. Should terrorists and felons be allowed to own firearms as per the second amendment?
It sounds as if you're suggesting that only some (or theoretically, even just one) of 'the militia' must be allowed to bear arms to satisfy the definition of the 2A. The problem with this is that it conflicts with 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Unless, of course, you similarly believe that 'the people's rights to petition government and be safe from unreasonable search and seizure also only apply at the collective level, and are achieved so long as only some (or one) of the people are afforded those rights? I do hope not. As to what 'the people' means... the Supreme Court has twice commented on this phrase’s meaning. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990, the Court said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States and that this definition of “the people” applied consistently through out the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. Additionally, Heller said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community." Now, we can argue about what the difference between the national community and the political community might be... but what we can't do (or what would be political suicide to try to do) would be to define any law-abiding American adults as excluded from either. We are each part of the national community. We are each part of the political community.
(I forgot a part on the last one, but too late to edit... so, double [sortof]) It sounds as if you're suggesting that only some (or theoretically, even just one) of 'the militia' must be allowed to bear arms to satisfy the definition of the 2A. The problem with this is that it conflicts with 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Unless, of course, you similarly believe that 'the people's rights to petition government and be safe from unreasonable search and seizure also only apply at the collective level, and are achieved so long as only some (or one) of the people are afforded those rights? I do hope not. As to what 'the people' means... the Supreme Court has twice commented on this phrase’s meaning. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990, the Court said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States and that this definition of “the people” applied consistently through out the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. Additionally, Heller said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community." Now, we can argue about what the difference between the national community and the political community might be... but what we can't do (or what would be political suicide to try to do) would be to define any law-abiding American adults as excluded from either. We are each part of the 'national community'. We are each part of the 'political community'. If you recall from the other thread, its easy to demonstrate that according to US Code we are each the militia. Therefore, therefore and therefore, we each have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed.