What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 02:31 PM)TheBear Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 02:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  If not, why are they both there? Why didn't they just say "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" (without any qualifiers)?

It would be bizarre, (to me), if the second clause said - "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that it should say that. But the way gun owners tend to interpret the 2nd amendment is to pretend that the first clause isn't even there -- i.e., that the amendment simply says "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." My argument is not that "militia" and "people" are interchangeable, but that the first clause (the "militia" part) qualifies, or gives a reason for, the second clause. This is supported by KUSA's post above. If the militia are irrelevant, why are they even mentioned?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 02:58 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 12:31 PM)TheBear Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 05:50 AM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Only applies if you're in the militia, hence the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and applies specifically in times of insurrection or possible invasion.

Funny how so many, many people "conveniently" forget that part of the amendment.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Having a well regulated militia makes perfect sense to me. What strikes me as odd is the notion that the second part of the amendment would also apply to the militia. That makes no sense at all. Can you explain why a militia needs a constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Thanks.
Yep. Some European countries had banned private gun ownership. This, if enacted in the US, would have rendered the militia moot and it necessary to have a standing army available for any incursions by Indians and/or British.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 03:03 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 01:56 PM)TheBear Wrote:  Are "the people" the "militia"?

The militia was composed of adult males.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 03:15 PM
What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  My argument is not that "militia" and "people" are interchangeable, but that the first clause (the "militia" part) qualifies, or gives a reason for, the second clause. This is supported by KUSA's post above. If the militia are irrelevant, why are they even mentioned?

It is one reason but not every reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 03:24 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 03:15 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  My argument is not that "militia" and "people" are interchangeable, but that the first clause (the "militia" part) qualifies, or gives a reason for, the second clause. This is supported by KUSA's post above. If the militia are irrelevant, why are they even mentioned?

It is one reason but not every reason.
At the time it was the reason.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 03:41 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 03:15 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  My argument is not that "militia" and "people" are interchangeable, but that the first clause (the "militia" part) qualifies, or gives a reason for, the second clause. This is supported by KUSA's post above. If the militia are irrelevant, why are they even mentioned?

It is one reason but not every reason.

Right. This is a complex issue, and very tersely stated in the amendment. I suspect that you would have to read supplementary documents like The Federalist Papers to get a more complete idea of their intentions. The document you quoted a few posts back helps, but that is a current document. I would be more trustful of documents dating from the same time period as the amendment.

However, it is certainly significant that they chose the need for an armed militia (and only that factor) as important enough to specify in the amendment itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 03:52 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 03:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 03:15 PM)KUSA Wrote:  It is one reason but not every reason.

Right. This is a complex issue, and very tersely stated in the amendment. I suspect that you would have to read supplementary documents like The Federalist Papers to get a more complete idea of their intentions. The document you quoted a few posts back helps, but that is a current document. I would be more trustful of documents dating from the same time period as the amendment.

However, it is certainly significant that they chose the need for an armed militia (and only that factor) as important enough to specify in the amendment itself.
Dig into that material, it's been years since I looked at it. The American State Papers may be of help, endlessly useful for my work.

It's also interesting to note that the Constitution's original aims have been circumvented by a group that stands to gain a profit at the expense of the US populace.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 04:30 PM
What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 03:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 03:15 PM)KUSA Wrote:  It is one reason but not every reason.

Right. This is a complex issue, and very tersely stated in the amendment. I suspect that you would have to read supplementary documents like The Federalist Papers to get a more complete idea of their intentions. The document you quoted a few posts back helps, but that is a current document. I would be more trustful of documents dating from the same time period as the amendment.

However, it is certainly significant that they chose the need for an armed militia (and only that factor) as important enough to specify in the amendment itself.


The purpose of the bill of rights was to put restrictions on the government. It was considered a natural right to defend oneself with arms. The part about the militia was simply one large scale reason to protect the right. It was not inclusive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KUSA's post
13-06-2017, 04:39 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 04:30 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 03:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Right. This is a complex issue, and very tersely stated in the amendment. I suspect that you would have to read supplementary documents like The Federalist Papers to get a more complete idea of their intentions. The document you quoted a few posts back helps, but that is a current document. I would be more trustful of documents dating from the same time period as the amendment.

However, it is certainly significant that they chose the need for an armed militia (and only that factor) as important enough to specify in the amendment itself.

The purpose of the bill of rights was to put restrictions on the government. It was considered a natural right to defend oneself with arms. The part about the militia was simply one large scale reason to protect the right. It was not inclusive.

Perhaps, but I'm not as confident as you are that I know what the intentions of the founders were. It's funny that today's conservatives (in general -- I'm not singling you out) make a big deal out of going by what the Constitution says and not trying to "interpret" it -- yet they interpret the hell out of the 2nd amendment. What it says is that the need for a militia is the reason for the right to bear arms. We could argue for centuries about what it means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2017, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2017 04:56 PM by TheBear.)
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  That is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that it should say that.

Sorry for the confusion. My bad. What I was saying is that it would make no sense whatsoever, to me, if the 2nd clause was written that way.

Quote: But the way gun owners tend to interpret the 2nd amendment is to pretend that the first clause isn't even there -- i.e., that the amendment simply says "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

LOL I agree. Some gun owners are ignorant of that clause. However, most gun owners, especially those who have concealed carry certifications, look at it in it's entirety.
,
Quote:My argument is not that "militia" and "people" are interchangeable, but that the first clause (the "militia" part) qualifies, or gives a reason for, the second clause.

The commas are there for a reason. Just like with the 1st amendment's 4 clauses, one clause isn't hinged on another, and they are separated by commas.

Quote:If the militia are irrelevant, why are they even mentioned?

No one is saying the militia clause is irrelevant. I'm just saying that the 2nd clause is separate and apart from the 1st clause, just like the different clauses in the 1st amendment. I mean, what does freedom of religion have to do with freedom of the press?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: