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

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Which of course is the proper interpretation.

That's your position. A perfectly respectable position.

An alternative is that it was a finding.

As a conditional, 2A says "as long as we need a militia, people get guns." So if you don't think we need a militia in the 21st century, we don't have to let every idiot have guns.

As a finding, 2A says "A militia is needed, people get guns." Two distinct, if related thoughts. You may not think a militia is still needed, but it was when they said it. But whatever your view of the continuing need for a militia, people get guns. Because that's what 2A says.

Either of those interpretations is plausibly what the founders were thinking. Or what the eligible citizens were thinking when they approved the Bill of Rights - which is really what counts. But we don't know. And even if we did, should we be bound by the possibly shortsighted or even mistaken views of long-dead people shortly after fighting a war with Britain?

The simple truth is that no one alive voted for that amendment. In fact, no one alive voted for the original constitution or most of the amendments.

Why should any of the portions of the constitution (or any of our laws) apply to any of America's current occupants if under a majority of those alive today had any say in them becoming the law?

 

[Huey Grey]

I'll wager I'm the only one on this board who will say this:

I think that:
Felons
KKK
Nazis
Menstruating Women
Drunks
Muslims
Climate Change Supporters/Deniers

All have a Constitutional right to own firearms, and it should not be restricted.

2nd says nothing of firearms, friend.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Sure. The point of the 2nd is to provide for national defense. The amendment makes that clear with the first clause. The first clause sets the conditions for the second clause. They are related. Of course it's no longer true that we drive our defense from citizen militias so the 2nd really should have zero standing in these gun debates. Self defense would be covered in the 9th. The second is consistently misinterpreted. Interpreted properly it's about as relevant as the 3rd mostly because we have an unconstitutional standing army.

What other amendment in the Bill of Rights has a point that's other than the rights that are being asserted and protected?

Which is to say that while I can see making this argument, it doesn't fit the pattern for the rest of the BoR. So I tend to doubt that that was the reason for 2A.

The anti-federalists, about whom we rarely hear much, wanted amendments to counterbalance the tremendous power given to the government in the original constitution. And while both the constitution and the BoR generated their own arguments, it's questionable that the plain constitution would have been adopted if not for the promise of amendments to guarantee critical rights. Sort of like the UK's promises to Scotland if it wouldn't secede - except that we actually got the BoR.

 

[naturalmwa]

That's your position. A perfectly respectable position.

An alternative is that it was a finding.

As a conditional, 2A says "as long as we need a militia, people get guns." So if you don't think we need a militia in the 21st century, we don't have to let every idiot have guns.

As a finding, 2A says "A militia is needed, people get guns." Two distinct, if related thoughts. You may not think a militia is still needed, but it was when they said it. But whatever your view of the continuing need for a militia, people get guns. Because that's what 2A says.

Either of those interpretations is plausibly what the founders were thinking. Or what the eligible citizens were thinking when they approved the Bill of Rights - which is really what counts. But we don't know. And even if we did, should we be bound by the possibly shortsighted or even mistaken views of long-dead people shortly after fighting a war with Britain?

The simple truth is that no one alive voted for that amendment. In fact, no one alive voted for the original constitution or most of the amendments.

Why should any of the portions of the constitution (or any of our laws) apply to any of America's current occupants if under a majority of those alive today had any say in them becoming the law?

Because it would be messy if we had to repass every law every ~50 years?

IMO, the only interpretation that makes sense is the first. If I leave on vacation and turn to my neighbor and say "Mow my lawn when the grass gets long, you can use my mower." That doesn't mean you can use my mower for all time for all things even after I return. I've laid out a condition under which you may use my mower. The same is true of the 2nd, otherwise it makes no sense to even include the militia language. You would just chop that condition off if you only meant people get guns.

 

[theIowaHawk]

2nd says nothing of firearms, friend.

Now THAT can certainly be argued.

 

[naturalmwa]

What other amendment in the Bill of Rights has a point that's other than the rights that are being asserted and protected?

Which is to say that while I can see making this argument, it doesn't fit the pattern for the rest of the BoR. So I tend to doubt that that was the reason for 2A.

The anti-federalists, about whom we rarely hear much, wanted amendments to counterbalance the tremendous power given to the government in the original constitution. And while both the constitution and the BoR generated their own arguments, it's questionable that the plain constitution would have been adopted if not for the promise of amendments to guarantee critical rights. Sort of like the UK's promises to Scotland if it wouldn't secede - except that we actually got the BoR.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The 2nd tells you why its there, its plain. To allow for regulated militias to exist.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Because it would be messy if we had to repass every law every ~50 years?

IMO, the only interpretation that makes sense is the first. If I leave on vacation and turn to my neighbor and say "Mow my lawn when the grass gets long, you can use my mower." That doesn't mean you can use my mower for all time for all things even after I return. I've laid out a condition under which you may use my mower. The same is true of the 2nd, otherwise it makes no sense to even include the militia language. You would just chop that condition off if you only meant people get guns.

You wrote the most important, the most vital word: WHEN. Clearly a conditional term.

The second has no "when" or anything similar. It is a flat-out statement: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

To be = Is. A well regulated Militia is necessary.

So, the correct analogy would be: "My grass is long, mowing it is necessary for good looks, I will never stop you from using my mower."

Sure, the neighbor might look at your lawn and decide not to mow it, but that is his decision, clearly he could if he wanted to.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Natural: Why are you so adamant that the 2A is about National defense, when it clearly is worded as State, which could be interpreted as the several states of America.

Would the States then decide whether their militia is still needed?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Also, unless I missed it, you haven't commented on the subjective-decision-making question I posed. In order to follow your theory, someone must make the decision that the 2A is no longer necessary. Who do you propose makes that decision? Under what authority?

 

[naturalmwa]

You wrote the most important, the most vital word: WHEN. Clearly a conditional term.

The second has no "when" or anything similar. It is a flat-out statement: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

To be = Is. A well regulated Militia is necessary.

So, the correct analogy would be: "My grass is long, mowing it is necessary for good looks, I will never stop you from using my mower."

Sure, the neighbor might look at your lawn and decide not to mow it, but that is his decision, clearly he could if he wanted to.

And by that standard, when my grass isn't long, he can't use the mower. The first part, unlocks the second part.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The assertion is that it is "necessary to the security of a free State". But that's not how we operate now. Consequently either the assertion is not true or we are not a free state. Either way the 2nd is not applicable to current gun control issues. I think there are still constitutional issues surrounding gun control, because I think self defence or even the right to hunt or rebel is protected under the 9th, but it's not under the 2nd. The 2nd is a narrow provision to provide for national defence which is no longer conducted as constitutionally outlined. The fun part is most who cry that gun control violates the constitution are completely fine with having the standing army the 2nd was designed to prevent. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

We agree on the standing army part. That's clear enough. But we get around that simply by reauthorizing it at least every 2 years. Problem solved - although I suspect both of us would argue that such a work-around violates the original intent.

The militia clause argument also strikes me as a work-around that is inconsistent with the original intent.

I think we should offer up an updated 2A. Obviously it would have to be fairly conservative to pass, but we wouldn't have to let the NRA write it. Most sensible people would like to see language that is clear and workable. We could, for example, make clear what "arms" we're talking about. We could recognize that keeping and bearing are not the only aspects of weapons ownership that need discussion. We could make less ambiguous when "due process of law" can be evoked to restrict or terminate gun rights. And so on.

How would you rewrite 2A?

Frankly, I'm very surprised that there aren't well-publicized 2A substitutes vying for our attention. Why not?

 

[naturalmwa]

Natural: Why are you so adamant that the 2A is about National defense, when it clearly is worded as State, which could be interpreted as the several states of America.

Would the States then decide whether their militia is still needed?

Exactly, that's how national defence was envisioned. The FF wanted to prevent the national government from having its own standing army which they thought could be used as an instrument of tyranny. That's why the constitution specifically says the army can only be authorized in 2 year increments. The Nation is constitutionally allowed only a standing Navy.

 

[naturalmwa]

Also, unless I missed it, you haven't commented on the subjective-decision-making question I posed. In order to follow your theory, someone must make the decision that the 2A is no longer necessary. Who do you propose makes that decision? Under what authority?

Why would any one need to make that decision. We clearly use a standing army for security, not militias. Its empirical and self evident. I'm not advocating we remove the 2nd any more than I am the 3rd. I'm just pointing out they are both relics of an age we no longer live in and thus don't apply to our current condition or policy debates. They might apply at some future date however. Ron Paul had some theories on National Defence that might make the 2nd relevant again. So keep them, just understand them.

 

[naturalmwa]

We agree on the standing army part. That's clear enough. But we get around that simply by reauthorizing it at least every 2 years. Problem solved - although I suspect both of us would argue that such a work-around violates the original intent.

The militia clause argument also strikes me as a work-around that is inconsistent with the original intent.

I think we should offer up an updated 2A. Obviously it would have to be fairly conservative to pass, but we wouldn't have to let the NRA write it. Most sensible people would like to see language that is clear and workable. We could, for example, make clear what "arms" we're talking about. We could recognize that keeping and bearing are not the only aspects of weapons ownership that need discussion. We could make less ambiguous when "due process of law" can be evoked to restrict or terminate gun rights. And so on.

How would you rewrite 2A?

Frankly, I'm very surprised that there aren't well-publicized 2A substitutes vying for our attention. Why not?

I think we had this exercise before. Personally I see most 2A proponents really fighting for the right to self defence of one stripe of another. I think this is a right already covered by the 9th and centuries of precedent, so I don't see a need for it to be specifically spelled out. But if people want a new self defence amendment, I'm cool with that. Thats just not the framework I view the 2nd through.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I will read it later, but first: As usual, what one founder thought/wanted has little to do with the Constitution that passed. Each person who helped draft, each State who ratified, could have different reasons for, and interpretations of the document and it's amendments.

I'm glad someone else is finally making this point.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why would any one need to make that decision. We clearly use a standing army for security, not militias. Its empirical and self evident. I'm not advocating we remove the 2nd any more than I am the 3rd. I'm just pointing out they are both relics of an age we no longer live in and thus don't apply to our current condition or policy debates. They might apply at some future date however. Ron Paul had some theories on National Defence that might make the 2nd relevant again. So keep them, just understand them.

So, if it is empirical and self evident, there is no debate right?

Am I in the matrix?

 

[theIowaHawk]

theIowaHawk said: ↑

You wrote the most important, the most vital word: WHEN. Clearly a conditional term.

The second has no "when" or anything similar. It is a flat-out statement: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

To be = Is. A well regulated Militia is necessary.

So, the correct analogy would be: "My grass is long, mowing it is necessary for good looks, I will never stop you from using my mower."

Sure, the neighbor might look at your lawn and decide not to mow it, but that is his decision, clearly he could if he wanted to.


And by that standard, when my grass isn't long, he can't use the mower. The first part, unlocks the second part.

No, it doesn't. In my analogy you said, "My grass is long..." That is a statement. That is your decision upon uttering it. Cutting it does not change/renew your position on it. "I will never stop you from using my mower." That is unqualified. I will never do it...........the reason is, because my grass is long."

If you disappeared forever, your neighbor would never, intrinsically, know when you believe your grass to be long, therefore he must take your words for it. It IS long, therefore.

Again, he could certainly decide for himself that it doesn't necessitate mowing, much like a person could decide he doesn't need a militia, and therefore won't own arms. That is his decision.

You are trying to make that decision for everyone....or at least for the ratifiers of the Constitution.

 

[naturalmwa]

So, if it is empirical and self evident, there is no debate right?

Am I in the matrix?

Sure, if you accept my position. Most don't. SCOTUS doesn't. So I won't want for debate partners.

 

[Huey Grey]

Now THAT can certainly be argued.

No, it can't.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Sure, if you accept my position. Most don't. SCOTUS doesn't. So I won't want for debate partners.

But doesn't that, in itself go against your theory? If it is, in fact, empirical and self-evident, there wouldn't be argument to the contrary.

Like the sky being blue. If that is self-evident, than there is no, or little argument. But if everyone, or lots of people disagree with you, how can you believe it to be empirical?

 

[naturalmwa]

No, it doesn't. In my analogy you said, "My grass is long..." That is a statement. That is your decision upon uttering it. Cutting it does not change/renew your position on it. "I will never stop you from using my mower." That is unqualified. I will never do it...........the reason is, because my grass is long."

If you disappeared forever, your neighbor would never, intrinsically, know when you believe your grass to be long, therefore he must take your words for it. It IS long, therefore.

Again, he could certainly decide for himself that it doesn't necessitate mowing, much like a person could decide he doesn't need a militia, and therefore won't own arms. That is his decision.

You are trying to make that decision for everyone....or at least for the ratifiers of the Constitution.

We disagree. The very presence of the grass statement qualifies the mower rights. If I simply wanted to give you unfettered access to my mower, I would not qualify it with the grass conditions.

 

[naturalmwa]

But doesn't that, in itself go against your theory? If it is, in fact, empirical and self-evident, there wouldn't be argument to the contrary.

Like the sky being blue. If that is self-evident, than there is no, or little argument. But if everyone, or lots of people disagree with you, how can you believe it to be empirical?

Are you arguing its not empirically evident we don't rely on State militias for security any longer? Thats a stretch IMO. I think most would grant that point. What most don't grant is that this obvious truth frames the 2nd clause. Which is why we are debating.

 

[theIowaHawk]

We disagree. The very presence of the grass statement qualifies the mower rights. If I simply wanted to give you unfettered access to my mower, I would not qualify it with the grass conditions.

Only if you believe it to be a qualification. I understand your point, that is the very simplest of our disagreement. You think that the additional words make it conditional, even without a conditioning term to conjoin it.

Maybe picture it this way instead: Neighbor stands outside checking out his beautiful, well-mowed lawn, scratching his belly. "Nice day, Larry." "Uh-huh, nice day, but my grass is a little lawn." "uh-huh, it is." "long grass should be mowed, George, and you know what, you can use my mower anytime you want."

I call the first part a statement, not a condition. It is an explanation why.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Are you arguing its not empirically evident we don't rely on State militias for security any longer? Thats a stretch IMO. I think most would grant that point. What most don't grant is that this obvious truth frames the 2nd clause. Which is why we are debating.

Point taken.

 

[theIowaHawk]

No, it can't.

You've said like 8 words, and you've hooked me.

So, your claim, is what? The 2A is not about "firearms" and there should be no debate on the matter?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. The 2nd tells you why its there, its plain. To allow for regulated militias to exist.

Grass needs mowing, the right of a homeowner to keep and use a lawnmower shall not be infringed.

Does someone living in Arizona with a gravel yard have a right to own and use a lawnmower? Could we have a law denying lawnmowers to apartment dwellers?

The first part of 2A and of my whimsical substitute are both true - or at least that's what the authors said. And each first part may have been the reason why the right was asserted. But the words used don't actually make the second part conditional on the continued relevance of the first part.

The simple fact is that the author(s) of 2A could very easily have made the connection a conditional but didn't.

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 phrase "being necessary" isn't a conditional. It's a statement of fact. It could be wrong - then or now - but it isn't a conditional.

It doesn't help that we may be running into punctuation drift over the last few hundred years. By my understanding of comma usage, "being necessary to the security of a free state" when enclosed in commas is a parenthetical statement of fact. You leave out that first comma, and it reads like a conditional. But what did it mean back then - and how would those who voted to ratify it have interpreted it?

Alternatively you could use the silly Madison argument about general welfare. Which, iirc, boils down to, if I had meant that, I would have used a semi-colon. Which doesn't even make sense, but it's viagra to modern cons.

I don't know why we laud these founding fathers. Again and again they could have used another word or 2 and we wouldn't be having these problems. Too clever by half.

 

[naturalmwa]

Only if you believe it to be a qualification. I understand your point, that is the very simplest of our disagreement. You think that the additional words make it conditional, even without a conditioning term to conjoin it.

Maybe picture it this way instead: Neighbor stands outside checking out his beautiful, well-mowed lawn, scratching his belly. "Nice day, Larry." "Uh-huh, nice day, but my grass is a little lawn." "uh-huh, it is." "long grass should be mowed, George, and you know what, you can use my mower anytime you want."

I call the first part a statement, not a condition. It is an explanation why.

If the framers had made the 2nd two sentences, you might have a point. But they linked the clauses together, making the first modify the second. You want to reduce the first part of the 2nd to a bit of irrelevant propaganda. I think it has meaning, which it only has if its not just a statement of fact, but a modifier on the right.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You've said like 8 words, and you've hooked me.

So, your claim, is what? The 2A is not about "firearms" and there should be no debate on the matter?

Clearly it was about the right to keep and bear a coat of arms.

We did away with titles of nobility but we wanted to reassure everybody that they could still display their coat of arms.

Apparently if you didn't already have a coat of arms you could get one from your neighborhood militia.

 

[naturalmwa]

Grass needs mowing, the right of a homeowner to keep and use a lawnmower shall not be infringed.

Does someone living in Arizona with a gravel yard have a right to own and use a lawnmower? Could we have a law denying lawnmowers to apartment dwellers.

The first part of 2A and of my whimsical substitute are both true - or at least that what the authors said. And may be the reason why the right was asserted. But they don't actually make the second part conditional on the continued relevance of the first part.

The simple fact is that the author(s) of 2A could very easily have made the connection a conditional but didn't.

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 phrase "being necessary" isn't a conditional. It's a statement of fact. It could be wrong - then or now - but it isn't a conditional.

It doesn't help that we may be running into punctuation drift over the last few hundred years. By my understanding of comma usage, "being necessary to the security of a free state" when enclosed in commas is a parenthetical statement of fact. You leave out that first comma, and it reads like a conditional. But what did it mean back then - and how would those who voted to ratify it have interpreted it.

Alternatively you could use the silly Madison argument about general welfare. Which, iirc, boils down to, if I had meant that, I would have used a semi-colon. Which doesn't even make sense, but it's viagra to modern cons.

I don't know why we laud these founding fathers. Again and again they could have used another word or 2 and we wouldn't be having these problems. Too clever by half.

I don't grant that point either. If you assert something is necessary and then prescribe a way to ensure that necessary thing, the entire sentence is conditioned on that thing actually being necessary. We have long since shown that thing they thought necessary, isn't. So the entire construct falls into irrelevancy. The topic the 2nd addresses just isn't part of modern America any longer.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't grant that point either. If you assert something is necessary and then prescribe a way to ensure that necessary thing, the entire sentence is conditioned on that thing actually being necessary. We have long since shown that thing they thought necessary, isn't. So the entire construct falls into irrelevancy. The topic the 2nd addresses just isn't part of modern America any longer.

Which is why I support amending it.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If the framers had made the 2nd two sentences, you might have a point. But they linked the clauses together, making the first modify the second. You want to reduce the first part of the 2nd to a bit of irrelevant propaganda. I think it has meaning, which it only has if its not just a statement of fact, but a modifier on the right.

Linking two sentences does not create a modification. Where your analogy had "when", the 2A does not.

I certainly wouldn't call it irrelevant propaganda, and I would even push it towards your thought. It is the result we disagree on. You think that it being ratified by the several states........but then just summarily ignored without going back to the several states is ok. That is where I disagree. The founders may have been describing exactly what you claim, saying, "If the first part is no longer true, than the second shouldn't either," then it should be changed by amendment. It would be akin to adding, "Amend me if this is ever untrue!"

I think you forget, or maybe ignore(?), the fact that the founders really pushed the idea of amendments. That is a main reason why amendments were, in fact, amendments, even though they took place contemporaneously.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I am a man and I like cheese.
I am a man, I like cheese.
There is no modifier.

I am a man when I like cheese, has a modifier.

 

[naturalmwa]

Which is why I support amending it.

Does that mean I won you over? That the 2nd is conditioned on a reality that doesn't exist in our time?

 

[naturalmwa]

Linking two sentences does not create a modification. Where your analogy had "when", the 2A does not.

I certainly wouldn't call it irrelevant propaganda, and I would even push it towards your thought. It is the result we disagree on. You think that it being ratified by the several states........but then just summarily ignored without going back to the several states is ok. That is where I disagree. The founders may have been describing exactly what you claim, saying, "If the first part is no longer true, than the second shouldn't either," then it should be changed by amendment. It would be akin to adding, "Amend me if this is ever untrue!"

I think you forget, or maybe ignore(?), the fact that the founders really pushed the idea of amendments. That is a main reason why amendments were, in fact, amendments, even though they took place contemporaneously.

I'm not summarily ignoring anything. It would be more correct to say your argument ignores the framing clause. Amend it if you like, but it's there and has meaning. I'm not the one who removed the necessary conditions laid out in the first clause for the prescription spelled out in the second. But removed they were.

The amendment served a purpose when those necessary conditions existed. It may be wise to keep it around to address a time should those conditions return. But the reality of our time simply means the amendment isn't relevant as it is worded. If you think there needs to be a firearm amendment, write one up. We don't have one now.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Does that mean I won you over? That the 2nd is conditioned on a reality that doesn't exist in our time?

No. I just think it's bad law. And the fact that people can even argue this point is just one reason why it's bad law.

Sadly, we seem to live in an era when we can't even agree to fix bad law.

 

[theIowaHawk]

If you think there needs to be a firearm amendment, write one up. We don't have one now.

No, I don't think so. I think it is a good and proper condition on the government. If they get guns, so do we.

And I don't own a single one, never have.

 

[naturalmwa]

I am a man and I like cheese.
I am a man, I like cheese.
There is no modifier.

I am a man when I like cheese, has a modifier.

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.

 

[naturalmwa]

No. I just think it's bad law. And the fact that people can even argue this point is just one reason why it's bad law.

Sadly, we seem to live in an era when we can't even agree to fix bad law.

People like to say the FF were good writers. I often have cause to disagree.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

As I have mentioned before, I am a well-armed liberal. But the idea that ordinary citizens armed with the sorts of weapons most of us could get could defeat government forces (or Blackwater forces or probably even the Crips or the Bloods), strikes me as fanciful if not delusional.

No one is arguing that civilians should have access to weaponry that's even remotely comparable to what GIs get. And if anyone did push for that, they'd either be ridiculed or Gitmo'd.

And if you aren't arguing for comparable arms, stop pretending it's to protect us from an oppressive government.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

People like to say the FF were good writers. I often have cause to disagree.

Again we agree. I made that point a few posts ago.