The minute you bring up it’s only the militia you have lost.
4 Likes
I don’t believe it is possible to predict human behavior at that level of specificity.
But take something I cited: which is keeping guns from those with domestic violence restraining orders. In states where that is enforced, fewer women are killed by men under restraining orders. Can I tell you thet a particular woman will live or another will die. No. But I can tell you that more women will live if such limits are put on men who are like to be irresponsible gun owners.
The lives of those women are worth saving.
What does that have to do with right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?
2 Likes
Ok…so you did your time for violent crime. Should you be allowed to have your right restored?
Most good conservatives are Constitutional originalists, who say we should interpret the Constitution in light of the intentions of the founders. I am arguing for orignalism.
There is no right for people to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed. 2A defines the only right that has a rationale: which is infringement shall not prevent the mustering of a well ordered militia.
The first step to understanding the 2nd Amendment is to read it in its entirely rather than cherry picking a phrase that aligns with your political goals. The second step is to embrace originalism: since the purpose of the militia was to defend slavery, and since the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, you have really have to twist what that founders intended to conclude anything other than 2A is largely moot.
Or you can own up that the conservative “originalism” argument is an insincere cover for conservative policy making through the courts.
2 Likes
No. It doesn’t say that at all.
It very clearly and explicitly tells you who the right applies to.
“There is no right for the people to keep and bear arms that cannot be infringed……”. Wrong! That is precisely and 100% exactly what it’s wording says.
5 Likes
Yes with some analysis. Voting rights by all means, because the individual franchise harms others. IIf you are thinking of guns, I am not sure. A person who fired a gun might be treated differently than someone who carried a gun and did not use in in commission of a crime vs. someone who did not have a gun while committing a crime. That needs to be thought through.
This is the text of the 2nd Amendment
“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 right to keep and bear arms exists to serve a purpose. Every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is enumerated without qualifier.
But the 2A is different as much as you want to pretend otherwise.
How does your access to guns enable the militia to maintain the security of a free state?
1 Like
Hint #1: it’s not a qualifier.
Hint #2: the people are “the militia”.
3 Likes
Understand there are two parts of 2nd Amendment…and second part is clear… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Anything else is making stuff up.
3 Likes
So who’s cherry picking now?
1 Like
If it is not a “qualifier” what is is?
The people are most definitely not the militia. I’ve read the Library of America’s wonderful volumes on “The Debate on the Constitution” and the militia most certainly is the Slave Patrols of the pre-13th Amendment United States.
The fact that it is a “well ordered” militia shows it is not the people in general. Its as specific organization of people. Remember, in the writing of the Constitution, most of the people didn’t have the right to vote; do you imagine the framers wanted to give them guns so they could take down the land holding elite who were the voters?
Someone is rewriting history…
4 Likes
I believe that is inevitable, but I don’t think I’ll be alive to see it.
Someone is rewriting history, but it isn’t me.
Find me one person in the Constitution Convention who spoke for a different interpretation of the right to bear arms. Washington and Hamilton conceded the point because the slave states were afraid, correctly it turned out, that if there was a federal monopoly on arms then the union would end slavery militarily.
History isn’t always what you want it to be.
Courts disagree with you concerning the tight of people to bear arms.
It’s called a prefatory clause, and is just a descriptor or example for the operative clause, which tells you what must be done.
“A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done. For example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution is a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause. The first part of…”
(Google prefatory clause)
“Beginning with the operative clause, the Supreme Court first concluded that the phrase the right of the people…”
“Turning back to the prefatory clause, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the term well-regulated militia does not refer to state or congressionally regulated military forces as described in the Constitution’s Militia Clause….”
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/
2 Likes
Courts agreed with me for two centuries. Antonin Scalia disagreed with that tradition and rewrote 2A in the Heller decision, an egregious example of judicial activism. Nevertheless Scalia’s decision left several doors open for a variety of gun control measures; including banning types of weapons.
Do you agree with Scalia or are you just imagining some other court that agrees with your version of 2A.
No they didn’t. They stayed pretty silent on it because it didn’t even come up until about the 30s….
And even in the 30s the courts ruled military arms could not be restricted, and the NFA and ATF have been operating in violation of that ruling for 80 years.
5 Likes
Right. I am arguing that a this violated the principle of constitutional originalism and constitutes judicial activism and overreach. My opinion of course. However the majority decision in Heller did not endorse an absolute ban in limits on access to guns, types of guns, etc. That court decision doesn’t exist yet, although many people pretend it does.
But the real issue I was raising was not my disappointment at conservatives abandoning their self proclaimed “Constitutional Originalism” but risk that gun rights advocates face if they are unwilling to work with 2A supporters like me to find a way to address the rising tide of public opinion that something has to be done at the constant drumbeat of dangerous misuse of guns.
