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.
It isn't vague, and the Federalist Papers that explain it aren't vague either. The problem is that no one is actually comfortable with individual citizens having grenade launchers, tanks, and nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790
The Supreme Court has already spoken to this, on multiple occasions.
The Heller case was in 2008. It was the first time in our history that the Supreme Court made a decision about the second amendment. Even though laws restricting the second amendment go back to the 1800's, and the law in the Heller case had been in force since the 1970's.
Many were rightly worried that Antonin Scalia had wanted to retry Roe v. Wade. And that if Trump or some other Republican stacked the court with more Scalias, it would be overturned. I don't know how definitive the Heller case is, since not only was it was a 5-4 decision, but two years later a nearly identical case, McDonald v. Chicago, was also a 5-4 decision.
It seems to me that the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law depends on whoever is currently sitting on the bench.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790
Did you mean, "You can't make people feel SAFE and at the same time confiscate their guns"?
No. People who feel unsafe won't be willing to give up their guns unless they honestly believed giving up their guns would make them more safe.
The democrats have basically been bringing in millions of illegals, stirring up riots and racial resentment, and then demand gun control. It's a bit much to handle.
It isn't vague, and the Federalist Papers that explain it aren't vague either. The problem is that no one is actually comfortable with individual citizens having grenade launchers, tanks, and nuclear weapons.
We're talking about the 2A, not the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers aren't the law of the land. And of COURSE the 2A is vague, hence the wildly different interpretations of it. And you're right--the vast majority of Americans aren't comfortable with individual citizens having grenade launchers. But the OP is saying, among other things, that restricting people from owning grenade launchers is a violation of the 2A. He's saying that ANY restrictions on guns/weapons is a violation of the 2A. So, his interpretation of the 2A is different than yours. 2A=vague.
Quote:
The Heller case was in 2008. It was the first time in our history that the Supreme Court made a decision about the second amendment....
Nonsense.
Quote:
It seems to me that the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law depends on whoever is currently sitting on the bench.
Alas, that's the system we have. Do you have a better way? Should we all just accept YOUR interpretation of the 2A? Because YOUR interpretation is, of course, the correct one.
Quote:
The democrats have basically been bringing in millions of illegals, stirring up riots and racial resentment, and then demand gun control...
Irrelevant. We're talking about the 2A and you deflect to the scary Democrats and illegal aliens. Not a strong way to make your argument.
We're talking about the 2A, not the Federalist papers. The Federalist papers aren't the law of the land. And of COURSE the 2A is vague, hence the wildly different interpretations of it. And you're right--the vast majority of Americans aren't comfortable with individual citizens having grenade launchers. But the OP is saying, among other things, that restricting people from owning grenade launchers is a violation of the 2A. He's saying that ANY restrictions on guns/weapons is a violation of the 2A. So, his interpretation of the 2A is different than yours. 2A=vague.
Anyone can have a different interpretation of anything. That doesn't automatically make it vague. The second amendment was very clear in the context of when it was written. But as liberals like to say, "The founding fathers couldn't have imagined tanks, machine guns, missiles, and nuclear weapons."
Thus they'll say that the Constitution needs a "modern interpretation". Which is called a "Living Constitution".
Alas, that's the system we have. Do you have a better way? Should we all just accept YOUR interpretation of the 2A? Because YOUR interpretation is, of course, the correct one.
I mean, my opinion about the second amendment is probably different from literally everyone else's. To explain, we need to understand that the Bill of Rights didn't actually apply to the states until something called the "Incorporation Doctrine" in 1925.
As I said before, the first Supreme Court case regarding the second amendment didn't happen until 2008. For pretty much all of the first 220 years, the Supreme basically rejected that it even had jurisdiction over the matter. Because the Bill of Rights was originally only a limitation on the Federal government, not the states.
The Incorporation Doctrine itself is based on the 14th amendment, which wasn't ratified until 1868, after the Civil War. So really, the founding fathers/framers have nothing to do with the modern interpretation of the second amendment.
But alas, my opinion doesn't matter, and your opinion doesn't matter. All that matters is the opinion of five people on the Supreme Court, who are put there by politicians, who are elected democratically. So on some level the Supreme Court will be a reflection of the democracy that put them there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill790
Irrelevant. We're talking about the 2A and you deflect to the scary Democrats and illegal aliens. Not a strong way to make your argument.
My point was, if Democrats want to take away guns, it might be smart if they stopped giving people a reason to want one.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 04-14-2021 at 10:10 AM..
Anyone can have a different interpretation of anything. That doesn't automatically make it vague. The second amendment was very clear in the context of when it was written. But as liberals like to say, "The founding fathers couldn't have imagined tanks, machine guns, missiles, and nuclear weapons."
Thus they'll say that the Constitution needs a "modern interpretation". Which is called a "Living Constitution".
I mean, my opinion about the second amendment is probably different from literally everyone else's. To explain, we need to understand that the Bill of Rights didn't actually apply to the states until something called the "Incorporation Doctrine" in 1925.
As I said before, the first Supreme Court case regarding the second amendment didn't happen until 2008. For pretty much all of the first 220 years, the Supreme basically rejected that it even had jurisdiction over the matter. Because the Bill of Rights was originally only a limitation on the Federal government, not the states.
The Incorporation Doctrine itself is based on the 14th amendment, which wasn't ratified until 1868, after the Civil War. So really, the founding fathers/framers have nothing to do with the modern interpretation of the second amendment.
But alas, my opinion doesn't matter, and your opinion doesn't matter. All that matters is the opinion of five people on the Supreme Court, who are put there by politicians, who are elected democratically. So on some level the Supreme Court will be a reflection of the democracy that put them there.
My point was, if Democrats want to take away guns, it might be smart if they stopped giving people a reason to want one.
If the Supreme Court justices are placed by elected politicians...I dont see how it isnt a huge conflict of interest favoring govt!?
The govt places the justices, the Govt pays the justices, their court is in a Govt building...Gee, I wonder who they are going to rule in favor of! LOL
Anyone can have a different interpretation of anything. That doesn't automatically make it vague. The second amendment was very clear in the context of when it was written. But as liberals like to say, "The founding fathers couldn't have imagined tanks, machine guns, missiles, and nuclear weapons."
Thus they'll say that the Constitution needs a "modern interpretation". Which is called a "Living Constitution".
I mean, my opinion about the second amendment is probably different from literally everyone else's. To explain, we need to understand that the Bill of Rights didn't actually apply to the states until something called the "Incorporation Doctrine" in 1925.
Great history lesson. How is it relevant? Yes, people have WILDLY different interpretations of the 2A. Because as it's written the 2A is very vague. So we rely on SCOTUS. Now. SCOTUS has ruled that background checks are Constitutional.
Quote:
As I said before, the first Supreme Court case regarding the second amendment didn't happen until 2008. For pretty much all of the first 220 years, the Supreme basically rejected that it even had jurisdiction over the matter. Because the Bill of Rights was originally only a limitation on the Federal government, not the states.
The Incorporation Doctrine itself is based on the 14th amendment, which wasn't ratified until 1868, after the Civil War. So really, the founding fathers/framers have nothing to do with the modern interpretation of the second amendment.
But alas, my opinion doesn't matter, and your opinion doesn't matter. All that matters is the opinion of five people on the Supreme Court, who are put there by politicians, who are elected democratically. So on some level the Supreme Court will be a reflection of the democracy that put them there.
And? I appreciate the additional history lesson, but I'm not sure how it speaks to the subject of the thread. It's pretty clear how the OP feels about the SCOTUS ruling on background checks. How do you feel? Do you think background checks are Constitutional?
Quote:
My point was, if Democrats want to take away guns, it might be smart if they stopped giving people a reason to want one.
Once again, irrelevant to the subject of the thread. We're not talking about "Democrats taking away guns." The thread is about the constitutionality of background checks as they pertain to the sale of guns.
Great history lesson. How is it relevant? Yes, people have WILDLY different interpretations of the 2A. Because as it's written the 2A is very vague.
Not in the slightest.
In modern language, it means, "Since militias are necessary, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."
In modern language, it means, "Since militias are necessary, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."
And that's all. What's "vague" about it?
Except, that's not what the 2A says. That's your INTERPRETATION of what it says, in "modern language." The 2A isn't written in MODERN LANGUAGE, right? Isn't that what liberals do? They want to re-write what the 2A says using "modern language." Using their own language.
Except, that's not what the 2A says. That's your INTERPRETATION of what it says, in "modern language." The 2A isn't written in MODERN LANGUAGE, right? Isn't that what liberals do? They want to re-write what the 2A says using "modern language." Using their own language.
--
Okay, time to explain what's already obvious to normal people. That is, people who have normal proficiency in today's American English.
When I say "In modern language it says this", I mean that "I will express it in modern language in a way that has EXACTLY THE SAME MEANING as what the Founders intended and expressed when they wrote it 200-plus years ago".
Clear now? What I wrote has meaning IDENTICAL to the original 2nd amendment.
The reason it's obvious is, what purpose could I possibly have in writing down a DIFFERENT meaning from what the Founders wrote?
Well, I suppose sometimes people have a reason to write down something that has a different meaning from the original. As you pointed out, liberals do it all the time, in an effort to lie and fool people into thinking the 2nd amendment means something other than what it plainly says.
Only by lying about their agenda, and lying about the facts that oppose it, can they make their agenda look either good or workable.
We've had several threads recently that try to address the meaning and purpose of the 2nd amendment. I've had to print this in every such thread, when more and more people who haven't a clue, keep popping up.
Looks like I missed one thread.
Time for the 1,651st repetition of the dissertation of an expert on American linguistics... who actually was not in favor of gun rights himself.
------------------------------------------
Reproduced in full with written permission from the author (see below):
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J.Neil Schulman
Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
The text of the Second Amendment is, "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 debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, ProfessorCopperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman]: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman]: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:](3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman]: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman:] If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
In modern language, it means, "Since militias are necessary, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."
And that's all. What's "vague" about it?
Two more interesting facts about the 2nd amendment:
1.) The first phrase, about militias, is an explanation for the 2nd amendment's command, not a condition on it. If somebody managed to PROVE that militias were no longer necessary, it would have no effect on the command given by the amendment: Government would still be strictly forbidden to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
2.) If we finally managed to repeal the 2nd amendment (as we once repealed the 18th, by passing the 21st).... the Federal government would STILL have no authority to make so-called "gun control" laws. Because no authority to make such laws, is given to the Fed govt anywhere in the Constitution. We would first have to put in YET ANOTHER amendment, saying something like "Congress has the power to make laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms."
The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights worked VERY HARD, to make sure government couldn't mess with the people's right to KBA, in any way. Now our present government is working almost as hard, to violate both the letter and the spirit of what the Founders wanted.
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.
Yes, people have WILDLY different interpretations of the 2A. Because as it's written the 2A is very vague. So we rely on SCOTUS. Now. SCOTUS has ruled that background checks are Constitutional.
