• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

a 2nd amendment meaning poll

Is this the same rule?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 14.3%

  • No

    Votes: 26 74.3%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • Total voters
    35
BobTheCoward said:
Im looking for a tally of those conclusions.

People have made their conclusions, and I would like to count them up. A poll before people have said their peace and reached their conclusions wouldnt be of value to me because I wouldn't have a bunch of people with conclusions to count
Click to expand...
I know it's just a typo, but I think perhaps I made a mistake myself in not saying my "peace." That is, it would probably be worthwhile in a thread of this sort just to shut up.
 
There is an old Latin expression which may well be relevant here as a general guide to constitution construction: verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent.

In essence, it means words written into law which haven't been repealed should be read to have some legal effect.

People who voted "yes" might explain why this time honored principle of legal interpretation ought to be set aside in this particular instance.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
There is an old Latin expression which may well be relevant here as a general guide to constitution construction: verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent.

In essence, it means words written into law which haven't been repealed should be read to have some legal effect.

People who voted "yes" might explain why this time honored principle of legal interpretation ought to be set aside in this particular instance.
Click to expand...

While it is done, the fact it is done is not a defense that it is correct. That it should be applied at all is claim by those who think it should be applied. The biggest question of language it has to overcome is why should words that don't actually modify a rule should be empowered to modify a rule?
 
d4m10n said:
There is an old Latin expression which may well be relevant here as a general guide to constitution construction: verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent.

In essence, it means words written into law which haven't been repealed should be read to have some legal effect.

People who voted "yes" might explain why this time honored principle of legal interpretation ought to be set aside in this particular instance.
Click to expand...

Well I voted yes because there was already a no and a maybe. For a moment, we had parity in the poll results.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The biggest question of language it has to overcome is why should words that don't actually modify a rule should be empowered to modify a rule?
Click to expand...
Don't actually according to whom?

For those of us following the abovementioned rule, they actually do help explain the scope of "the people" intended to bear arms, that is, well-trained militiamen.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Don't actually according to whom?

For those of us following the abovementioned rule, they actually do help explain the scope of "the people" intended by the founder to bear arms, that is, well-trained militiamen.
Click to expand...

Or it doesn't. Maybe it does. Or maybe they really wanted to, and the rule they wrote is just overbroad.
 
The Second Amendment is the anti-standing army amendment: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." – Elbridge Gerry, who played kind of an important role in the creation of the 2A.

The line about "being necessary to the security of a Free state" is critical to understanding the purpose of the 2A: They wanted to limit the power of the federal govt.

Most Americans don't even know why the amendments appear in the order they do. They assume the 1A is the most important, followed by the 2A, and then they quit even pretending to think.

Ironically, a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution could justify individual firearm ownership, but an originalist interpretation fails miserably. Also ironically, gun cultists are huge supporters of the military-industrial complex.
 
The wording does not matter, because it is interpreted religiously.

Christians fight wars with Christians over their religious interpretations of the bible, over the same words in the same document. Muslims fight wars with other Muslims over their interpretation of the Koran. The actual wording becomes less and less important as they instead twist and bend their interpretation of the wording to fit their beliefs.

The 2A is in much the same boat. Guns are more and more of a religious icon for many. Not all gun owners of course, but for those with the strongest feelings, those driving the debate, it has become a sort of psuedo-religious belief structure. Which ironically, makes the actual wording of the 2A irrelevant. It means whatever they want to mean.
 
Last edited:
I never found the the wordplay arguments from anti-gun types very convincing. It seems extremely clear to me that the 2nd amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, is about conferring individual rights. We can thank the pointlessly flowery language employed by the Founding Fathers for this tedium.

I know politically it's a nonstarter, but the real intellectually honest anti-gun stance is to say that the 2nd amendment sucks and should be removed in totality. The way our constitution is written is inherently conservative, making it damn near impossible to make meaningful changes to government without an absurd supermajority, so they're stuck trying to do pretzels to pretend 2A doesn't say what it plainly says. Political expediency says pretending this isn't true is the easier path.

ETA: The obvious caveat is that nobody has to pretend following the plain letter law of the constitution is imperative. The law says whatever the courts decides it says. Screw the constitution, you want to ban guns pack the courts and get it done using whatever pretextual nonsense is required. The whole history of this country is people bending over backwards to make the government work despite the idiotically designed system we have.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I never found the the wordplay arguments from anti-gun types very convincing. It seems extremely clear to me that the 2nd amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, is about conferring individual rights. We can thank the pointlessly flowery language employed by the Founding Fathers for this tedium.

I know politically it's a nonstarter, but the real intellectually honest anti-gun stance is to say that the 2nd amendment sucks and should be removed in totality. The way our constitution is written is inherently conservative, making it damn near impossible to make meaningful changes to government without an absurd supermajority, so they're stuck trying to do pretzels to pretend 2A doesn't say what it plainly says. Political expediency says pretending this isn't true is the easier path.

ETA: The obvious caveat is that nobody has to pretend following the plain letter law of the constitution is imperative. The law says whatever the courts decides it says. Screw the constitution, you want to ban guns pack the courts and get it done using whatever pretextual nonsense is required. The whole history of this country is people bending over backwards to make the government work despite the idiotically designed system we have.
Click to expand...

I agree it needs to be scrapped. The 2nd amendment is far too restrictive on gun ownership.
 
crescent said:
The wording does not matter, because it is interpreted religiously.
Click to expand...

Of course it's interpreted religiously. Human rights and civil liberties are ultimately questions of faith. You either believe in freedom of speech, or you don't. You either believe in the right of self defense, or you don't. You either believe the 2nd amendment enshrines the right to self defense, or you don't. Etc.
 
theprestige said:
You either believe the 2nd amendment enshrines the right to self defense, or you don't. Etc.
Click to expand...

Seems like a conflation of questions. There's a broader question of whether human should have some inalienable right of self defense and access to the tools to accomplish that, and the question of what the 2nd amendment says.

It seems to me extremely clear what 2A says. All this haggling about language is the product of political expediency, but the real debate isn't about the language, it's about the broader debate about self-defense.
 
The second amendment says arms can be regulated, so it can be interpreted to mean you can only bear certain kinds of arms, and it can be illegal to fire them, and you can be legally limited to two.

It says nothing about using arms for self-defense.

And it doesn't say you can shoot them.

Other laws certainly say you can use weapons in a self defense situation, but it's not something in the second amendment.

This is only my interpretation and others opinions may vary.
 
bobdroege7 said:
The second amendment says arms can be regulated, .
Click to expand...

But it doesn't say it can be?

It says the reason for the amendment is to provide for it....and then fails to limit it in anyway.

Seems it doesn't even allow for preventing incarcerated people from bearing arms.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But it doesn't say it can be?

It says the reason for the amendment is to provide for it....and then fails to limit it in anyway.

Seems it doesn't even allow for preventing incarcerated people from bearing arms.
Click to expand...
Reiterating my "maybe" vote, I would suggest that while it's quite possible to say that the first part of the amendment carries little or no weight at all, it is also possible to suggest that the first portion establishes that regulation should be considered possible. The amendment purposely omits that regulation, but by mentioning it could be said to open the possibility of subsequent legislation to refine the meaning of the basic right. We might even credit the founders with having anticipated that technology would require this. You can provide a door, and even open it, without stepping through it right away.

It is, after all, the way the amendment has been treated in some degree already. Few people would argue that the law has been overstepped or the amendment violated by excluding from the "right to bear arms" the right to carry bazookas, machine guns, or atom bombs. Nor do most people complain that insane, under-age and habitually felonious persons should be included in "the people" who have the right. In many places there are laws regarding the carrying of swords and the like, and even of pocket knives over a certain length, and even in jurisdictions such as Vermont where the State Constitution allows you to carry a sword and there is no limitation on knife blade length, switchblades are forbidden, and we hear little whining about that even though they are as much "arms" as any gun.

Whatever your view of the second amendment and its wording, most people's objection to gun regulation is not to the idea of regulation but the content, and it is selective and subjective, no matter what the gun advocates might say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom