2nd ammendment skepticism

[quixotecoyote]

Thanks to the comma, the militias thing and the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed are separate. It's like "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You want a reason? Fine. 'Militias.' Happy now?"

Yeah I get that's the argument on the other side.

I don't think it holds water given the latitude of interpretation the courts have demonstrated themselves capable of. I see no reason why the right couldn't be interpreted as the right of the people to bear arms in a militia, since that's why they have that right.

In my admittedly biased opinion (I don't have any desire to own a gun since I lack a clear need) it seems like people who want gun rights don't really care why that right was specified. I hear "The constitution says it, I want it, that settles it" without considering why the constitution says it, which is a legitimate area of judicial interpretation.

 

[Drudgewire]

I don't think it holds water given the latitude of interpretation the courts have demonstrated themselves capable of. I see no reason why the right couldn't be interpreted as the right of the people to bear arms in a militia, since that's why they have that right.

In my admittedly biased opinion (I don't have any desire to own a gun since I lack a clear need) it seems like people who want gun rights don't really care why that right was specified. I hear "The constitution says it, I want it, that settles it" without considering why the constitution says it, which is a legitimate area of judicial interpretation.

Actually I find the whole militias thing to be a valid enough reason for guns too. I look to Switzerland during WWI, when a German Kaiser was invited to watch their militia train. At one point, he asked a militiaman "what will happen if your 500,000 man militia comes up against a million German invading soldiers?"

The historic response? "We'll shoot twice and go home." Germany never invaded Switzerland.

Edited for civility. Drudgewire, you should realize that this is a violation of the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Drudgewire]

Edited for civility. Drudgewire, you should realize that this is a violation of the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

I sowwy.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm sorry, but even if you think that people shouldn't have guns now, the entire, "The second amendment only gave the right to the militia or only if militias are need," doesn't work contextually, historically, legally, or grammatically. Of course that has already been pointed out.

If you think the 2nd Amendment should be dropped, that's fine. That's a valid opinion to hold. To say the 2nd Amendment no longer applies is just grasping at things, and it does a disservice to people who want more gun control.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'm sorry, but even if you think that people shouldn't have guns now, the entire, "The second amendment only gave the right to the militia or only if militias are need," doesn't work contextually, historically, legally, or grammatically. Of course that has already been pointed out.

The bottom line is this: If you think inside the box then I can see how "the only reason for militias is to overthrow the government" argument makes sense in a convoluted, confirmation-bias sort of way.

But that's incredibly short-sighted.

10 years ago we could never have imagined what "living in a post 9/11 world" could be like. Today, it gets harder and harder to remember what that was like when we didn't.

Some consider the biggest threat in the future to be China, a country that outnumbers us 4 to 1. We don't have a real need for citizen militias today, and we won't tomorrow. 10 years from now, we might not remember a time when we didn't.

And like Switzerland, the simple fact we are capable of fighting back is one hell of a deterrent. I'm not paranoid enough to say it will happen, but I'm also not enough of a fantasist to think it never could.


PS: I'd like to take a moment to legitimately apologize for the thing that got me yellow-carded. It's not an excuse because I still knew better, but I'm having an ulcer flair-up for the first time since I quit smoking pot and refuse to go off the wagon in order to "medicate" myself. It's made me a bit snippy.

 

[Tricky]

Edited for civility. Drudgewire, you should realize that this is a violation of the Membership Agreement. Don't do it again.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

I sowwy.

I know you meant it to be humorous. But this is the public section, and James Randi has made it clear that he wants it to be school-friendly. That's just the way it works here. Sorry to have to infract you. No big deal though.

Now I'd better shut up before I get infracted for talking about FM issues here.

 

[tyr_13]

If you read the 2nd Amendment to say it only gives the people the right to own arms as long as militias are needed, that also means that you believe we no longer are a free state.

 

[Drudgewire]

If you read the 2nd Amendment to say it only gives the people the right to own arms as long as militias are needed, that also means that you believe we no longer are a free state.

And here comes the page of off-topic Patriot Act posts.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

And here comes the page of off-topic Patriot Act posts. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/doh.gif[/qimg]

You bad!

I fully intend not even to mention the Patriot Act in this post.

....

Eep...

D'oh!! (_8(|)