Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read it, but it is contradictory to what you seem to say in post #42, namely that the 2nd Amendment restricts gun rights to the militia.
I offered an alternative interpretation in post 32.
That said, there's no reason why the structure of the amendment, even with a purpose that I outlined, precludes it from being intended for the militia. E.g:
"Because we need a militia to protect the nation, then we need to allow people to own guns."
The implication being that the militia consists of the common citizenry. But if that's the case, then what I said in post 32 (seems to) apply. Expanding upon that ...
1) If the militia is no longer relevant in protecting the nation, then the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant. Or:
2) The militia (or National Guard) is still relevant in protecting the nation, but that simply means that only militia/NG members have a right to own a firearm. Or:
3) The militia/NG is the only entity that's supposed to protect the nation, in which case the professional army is unconstitutional.
BTW, the overall gist of this is, the purpose of owning a firearm is to protect the state. If you are owning a firearm for purposes other than protecting the state, that would not be a protected right (though it could certainly be a privilege).
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
I offered an alternative interpretation in post 32.
That said, there's no reason why the structure of the amendment, even with a purpose that I outlined, precludes it from being intended for the militia. E.g:
"Because we need a militia to protect the nation, then we need to allow people to own guns."
The implication being that the militia consists of the common citizenry. But if that's the case, then what I said in post 32 (seems to) apply. Expanding upon that ...
1) If the militia is no longer relevant in protecting the nation, then the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant. Or:
2) The militia (or National Guard) is still relevant in protecting the nation, but that simply means that only militia/NG members have a right to own a firearm. Or:
3) The militia/NG is the only entity that's supposed to protect the nation, in which case the professional army is unconstitutional.
It is incredibly BADLY worded because it is too open to interpretation.
I predict this will be at least a 30 page thread of everybody arguing over what it really means, which proves my point.
It does not prove your point. Another possibility is that many modern Americans have poor reading comprehension. Readers in the late 18th century understood grammar. Today they often don't. Just look at how many people misuse 'lie' and 'lay.' Or browse the 'I can't take it anymore' thread in the writing forum. The thread had to be split into two because it got too big. //www.city-data.com/forum/writi...-part-2-a.html
The wording is fine. The problem lies with the modern American reader.
I offered an alternative interpretation in post 32.
That said, there's no reason why the structure of the amendment, even with a purpose that I outlined, precludes it from being intended for the militia. E.g:
"Because we need a militia to protect the nation, then we need to allow people to own guns."
The implication being that the militia consists of the common citizenry. But if that's the case, then what I said in post 32 (seems to) apply. Expanding upon that ...
1) If the militia is no longer relevant in protecting the nation, then the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant. Or:
2) The militia (or National Guard) is still relevant in protecting the nation, but that simply means that only militia/NG members have a right to own a firearm. Or:
3) The militia/NG is the only entity that's supposed to protect the nation, in which case the professional army is unconstitutional.
Again, you're making this way too complicated. We have two sentences of identical structure, but you want to interpret them as structurally different.
It does not prove your point. Another possibility is that many modern Americans have poor reading comprehension. Readers in the late 18th century understood grammar. Today they often don't. Just look at how many people misuse 'lie' and 'lay.' Or browse the 'I can't take it anymore' thread in the writing forum. The thread had to be split into two because it got too big. //www.city-data.com/forum/writi...-part-2-a.html
The wording is fine. The problem lies with the modern American reader.
The intent of the Founding Fathers is irrelevant. What it means to us today is what counts, and the Supreme Court defined the meaning of the 2A for today with the Heller decision.
The argument over the meaning of the 2A is over and it IS the law of the land. If some people don't like it, they need to start working towards a Constitutional Convention to change it.
It does not prove your point. Another possibility is that many modern Americans have poor reading comprehension. Readers in the late 18th century understood grammar. Today they often don't. Just look at how many people misuse 'lie' and 'lay.' Or browse the 'I can't take it anymore' thread in the writing forum. The thread had to be split into two because it got too big. //www.city-data.com/forum/writi...-part-2-a.html
The wording is fine. The problem lies with the modern American reader.
I don't have poor reading comprehension and I can see that there are at least two or three different ways to interpret the text.
Basically you can read it whichever way appeals to your own personal bias.
Having the right to Keep something is not the same as the right to Own something. A police officer having permission to keep his patrol vehicle at his home does not grant him ownership of said vehicle. If the intention of the 2nd Amendment was individual ownership it would have stated that specifically like it does in the 5th Amendment.
extremely poor analogy at best. there is a huge difference between a police officer being able to take home his patrol car, and not grant him ownership since the department holds the title to the vehicle, not the officer. but when it comes to things like firearms, the government is not loaning firearms to the people, the people have to buy their own guns. and that means they can keep them, AS WELL AS bear them, meaning they can carry their firearms with them. once again you need to acquiesce to the ruling of the supreme court which has consistently held that when the constitution talks about the people they mean the individual and not the collective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
