POLL: Which of These Folks Should Be Allowed to Buy and Own Arms?

[theIowaHawk]

This isn't convincing. The "I am a man" does modify the "I like cheese" even if that grammatical modifier "when" isn't there. The "I" must be a man to like the cheese. That "I" can't be a mouse. So you have modified your second clause by including your first clause.

Now you have just left sentence structure and grammar and everything else behind.

If your 9th grade English teacher told you that you were wrong on the modifier, would it convince you? (Is that still when you learn this stuff?) I would probably concede the point if mine did, even though mine wasn't the brightest bulb.

We need a grammer nazi in here, I'm not sure "modifier" is even the correct term for this.

 

[naturalmwa]

Now you have just left sentence structure and grammar and everything else behind.

If your 9th grade English teacher told you that you were wrong on the modifier, would it convince you? (Is that still when you learn this stuff?) I would probably concede the point if mine did, even though mine wasn't the brightest bulb.

We need a grammer nazi in here, I'm not sure "modifier" is even the correct term for this.

Why do you think this? If you tell me "I am a man, I like cheese" don't I know that the object of that second "I" is a man? If I know that, don't I get that information from the first clause? If true, doesn't that mean your first clause modified the meaning of your second clause even with out the would when or any modifier bit of grammer? The presence of the additional information is inherently modifying.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Of course, but you don't need to know that it is a man, and you could have determined that for yourself.

I agree it is inherently "modifying", but not modifying in the way you wish to apply it to the 2A. Which is why I called for a grammar nazi on this.

Your argument is that if he ever stops being a man (empirically), he no longer would like cheese. That is your modification argument. I don't think that stands the test of grammar. It may be the reason why he liked cheese, but changing the first part, doesn't necessitate the demise of the second.

 

[naturalmwa]

Of course, but you don't need to know that it is a man, and you could have determined that for yourself.

I agree it is inherently "modifying", but not modifying in the way you wish to apply it to the 2A. Which is why I called for a grammar nazi on this.

Your argument is that if he ever stops being a man (empirically), he no longer would like cheese. That is your modification argument. I don't think that stands the test of grammar. It may be the reason why he liked cheese, but changing the first part, doesn't necessitate the demise of the second.

Add the word nessisary to your sentence. Make sense now? If you said manhood was nessisary to like cheese, I like cheese. If you stop being a man, your cheese liking can't exist.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I still disagree, because that isn't how one could even claim the 2A is modified.

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.

The analogy, tweaking it as you suggest might be:

A man, being necessary to have a penis, I like cheese.

They really are two things, compounded, not modified. As you admit, each could stand alone. They didn't do that, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything, other than being an explanation.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Why?
"A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Your premise is then, that if that answer is untrue, than the clause is to be ignored. That is simply not true. The Amendment did not need to list every reason for an armed citizenry, but they wrote one.

"I like cheese."
Why?
"I am a man."
So if you were a woman?
"I'd still like cheese."

 

[naturalmwa]

I still disagree, because that isn't how one could even claim the 2A is modified.

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.

The analogy, tweaking it as you suggest might be:

A man, being necessary to have a penis, I like cheese.

They really are two things, compounded, not modified. As you admit, each could stand alone. They didn't do that, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything, other than being an explanation.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Why?
"A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Your premise is then, that if that answer is untrue, than the clause is to be ignored. That is simply not true. The Amendment did not need to list every reason for an armed citizenry, but they wrote one.

"I like cheese."
Why?
"I am a man."
So if you were a woman?
"I'd still like cheese."

Explanation works for me. That frames the logic. It tells you exactly why people get guns and it's not to rebel, or hunt, or shoot rapists. It's to join a malita. A well regulated one run by the state.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Explanation works for me. That frames the logic. It tells you exactly why people get guns and it's not to rebel, or hunt, or shoot rapists. It's to join a malita.

But you have no idea why the state's ratified it, or is that was their reason. They could agree with me. I admit they could agree with you.

I doubt it, I obviously didn't live back then, but if it is remotely like today, very few were agreeing that someday they may give up their arms.

 

[naturalmwa]

But you have no idea why the state's ratified it, or is that was their reason. They could agree with me. I admit they could agree with you.

I doubt it, I obviously didn't live back then, but if it is remotely like today, very few were agreeing that someday they may give up their arms.

I suppose you could research that. If you do, I think you will find lots of support for my assertion that the 2nd is framed in the larger debate over a standing army. But as you yourself argued original intent is a poor standard as it can't be reliably determined. Looking just at the words on the page, my position is more logical than yours as my argument gives meaning to the entire amendment, where you have to dismiss half of it.

 

[Lone Clone]

I could have listed a lot more categories, but I'm just curious how HROT feels and these should give a sense.

Remember, check as many options as you think represent people who should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

I deliberately focused on buying and owning, and left carrying and concealed carrying out of the equation because most people are a bit more conflicted about that.

Since this is America, I would suggest rewording the question to something like, "Which of these people should be denied their Second Amendment right?"

It's a small, but psychologically significant difference. I'm not just being an asshole for the fun of it. Saying "who should be allowed" shifts the perspective entirely, and implies that gun ownership is some kind of benefit that the government can dole out. That is what some liberals believe, I think, but it simply isn't true.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I suppose you could research that. If you do, I think you will find lots of support for my assertion that the 2nd is framed in the larger debate over a standing army. But as you yourself argued original intent is a poor standard as it can't be reliably determined. Looking just at the words on the page, my position is more logical than yours as my argument gives meaning to the entire amendment, where you have to dismiss half of it.

For the last time, and I have clearly articulated this, my argument does not ignore half of the clause.

I'm fine disagreeing, but my thoughts are stated above, no need to twist them. Not that it wins any argument, but WWJD appears to agree with me, but feel free to think that yours is more logical...because you say so.

I often operate on the same principle.

 

[naturalmwa]

For the last time, and I have clearly articulated this, my argument does not ignore half of the clause.

I'm fine disagreeing, but my thoughts are stated above, no need to twist them. Not that it wins any argument, but WWJD appears to agree with me, but feel free to think that yours is more logical...because you say so.

I often operate on the same principle.

That's all you're doing. You are just saying you aren't ignoring the first clause, but you grant it no power to inform the meaning of the amendment. Your argument only grants meaning to the second clause. That's our entire disagreement. How do you allow the first part to frame the debate? I get why you don't, the moment you do the right to arms becomes qualified.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Well, then, a statement isn't conditional, it is a statement. They said it, they wrote it, it is true.

If the first part isn't true any longer, as you posit, that doesn't change the wording. It still says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This may be outdated, but it is still the words.

I would think you must fall in to one of two categories:

1. It is no longer true, therefore it should be amended to recognize such.
2. It is no longer true, therefore the words automatically change.

Am I right?

A conditional statement is also a sentence that can be either true or false. They are special, though, because they occur so often in arguments. A conditional statement has two parts: the antecedent and the consequent. A conditional statement generally has the form of an "if, then" statement, in which we have "If [the antecedent], then [the consequent]." Consider the following example:
If you earned an A on the final paper, then you earn an A in the class.
The entire statement is the conditional, "you earned an A on the final paper" is the antecedent, and "you earn an A in the class" is the consequent.

 

[theIowaHawk]

That's all you're doing. You are just saying you aren't ignoring the first clause, but you grant it no power to inform the meaning of the amendment. Your argument only grants meaning to the second clause. That's our entire disagreement. How do you allow the first part to frame the debate? I get why you don't, the moment you do the right to arms becomes qualified.

Of course it informs the meaning of the amendment, but it is statement, not simply a condition.

You want to decide whether the first part is still true, you aren't allowed to, without an amendment.

I can't say it simpler than, it is a statement. The way you change that statement is to amend.

 

[naturalmwa]

Of course it informs the meaning of the amendment, but it is statement, not simply a condition.

You want to decide whether the first part is still true, you aren't allowed to, without an amendment.

I can't say it simpler than, it is a statement. The way you change that statement is to amend.

Ok, so how does the first clause inform the meaning of the amendment? What impact does it make under your theory of interpretation? It seems to me thus far that your interpretation grants that first clause zero power. The right to guns isn't impacted one way or the other by that first clause under your interpretation. To me that means you are effectively ignoring that first clause by granting it zero ability to influence the meaning of the amendment.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The first part tells you why the believed it was necessary. I grant you that. What I don't grant you is the ability to simply negate the first part. It is impacted by it, because it is a statement, but until that statement is changed, it will always be impacted in the exact same way.

If I chisel into stone outside my house: "I am King Kong." You don't get to see me, decide for yourself I am not King Kong. It is a statement, in order for it to no longer be valid, it has to be changed.

Crikey, my analogies are getting worse. If you don't know what I'm saying at this point, then it doesn't really matter.

Maybe a better example would be the creation of a clause, similar to the 14th, but says, "Minorities get equal protection because they are treated fundamentally unequally." That is a statement, you don't get to just determine that minorities are now, in fact, treated fairly. That determination is solidly finite within the clause.

 

[naturalmwa]

The first part tells you why the believed it was necessary. I grant you that. What I don't grant you is the ability to simply negate the first part. It is impacted by it, because it is a statement, but until that statement is changed, it will always be impacted in the exact same way.

If I chisel into stone outside my house: "I am King Kong." You don't get to see me, decide for yourself I am not King Kong. It is a statement, in order for it to no longer be valid, it has to be changed.

Crikey, my analogies are getting worse. If you don't know what I'm saying at this point, then it doesn't really matter.

Maybe a better example would be the creation of a clause, similar to the 14th, but says, "Minorities get equal protection because they are treated fundamentally unequally." That is a statement, you don't get to just determine that minorities are now, in fact, treated fairly. That determination is solidly finite within the clause.

I'm not the one asking to negate the first clause. That's closer to your position because you refuse to allow it to inform your interpretation of the second clause. My argument doesn't require any change to the amendment, yours does or you could just keep ignoring the first clause.

I don't have a problem with you wanting to change the second or leave it as is. Both work just fine with my world view. But currently, I believe my interpretation of the 2nd is more sound because I grant that the framers intended every word to carry meaning. That the amendment is one complete thought. Your interpretation utilizes a different logic I find unconvincing.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yours does require a "change" to the Amendment, it requires it to be entirely obsolete.

You keep saying that my reading disregards their meaning.....that just isn't true. I have certainly failed to convince you. Likewise, I understand your side, it just doesn't work, in my opinion.

I can look at it in a realistic manner: Would the framers/ratifiers have agreed that someday they would give up their "arms"? I say absolutely not, which supports my side. You have to believe that they did, in fact, believe that some day they would do so, and that they agreed to do it. Just off a revolution and they were thinking about the possibility of disarming? Yeah, right.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yours does require a "change" to the Amendment, it requires it to be entirely obsolete.

You keep saying that my reading disregards their meaning.....that just isn't true. I have certainly failed to convince you. Likewise, I understand your side, it just doesn't work, in my opinion.

I can look at it in a realistic manner: Would the framers/ratifiers have agreed that someday they would give up their "arms"? I say absolutely not, which supports my side. You have to believe that they did, in fact, believe that some day they would do so, and that they agreed to do it. Just off a revolution and they were thinking about the possibility of disarming? Yeah, right.

I don't think so. What I have to believe and what is empirically true is that we now have a standing army which made the 2nd irrelevant. Now I suppose states still have the right to maintain militias and if they expected the citizens to muster with their own weapons the 2nd would protect that right. But that's not the reality we live in. If politicians wished to operate that way they are free to do so, but it's their actions, not my argument which sidelined the 2nd.

The right of people to have weapons for personal use is covered in the 9th. It's just not what the 2nd covers. So restricting magazine size is no more of a constitutional issue that restricted emissions on your car due to the right to travel or restricting pesticides due to the right to eat.

 

[theIowaHawk]