So i have been reading the constitution...

Second Amendment
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.

I see nowhere in this statement that you are supposed to go to public places and shoot at people because of different beliefs or just for your amusement...

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment prevents gun licensing & national gun registration. Yet NRA types pretend licensing and registration are tantamount to "TaKiNg AwAy OuR gUnS!!!"

It's interesting that the subject of the one-sentence 2nd Amendment is "a well regulated militia," yet most gun lovers have ZERO militia connection.

Constitutional originalists like to be guided by the wisdom of the late great Antonin Scalia, who opposed a "living" or "evolving" Constitution. Scalia said judges should look to what a law meant when it was adopted and not “to what society today thinks it ought to mean.” He also spoke of the meaning of the words as they were understood by average people at the time of adoption (of a legal text) AKA "original public meaning".

On that basis he opposed gay marriage, because that's not what marriage meant at the time marriage laws were adopted.

Which brings us to the question, what did it mean to "bear arms" in 1789? Well, you can't carry a cannon, so that's out. Bearable arms meant muskets and blunderbusses - muzzle loaders with a low refire rate. That's the sum total of the "original public meaning" of arms a person can bear.

Conservatives like to think of themselves as "keepers of the flame" of the "original Constitution." But in truth, they evolve it where they like, and try to prevent evolution where they don't like. Fact: you can't have it both ways; either the whole document evolves, or none of it, not even the Second Amendment, evolves.

ninalanyon · 61-69, T

@ElwoodBlues

Bearable arms meant muskets and blunderbusses - muzzle loaders with a low refire rate.

It also meant swords and knives. But I don't see anyone in the US defending the carrying of those.

Among the treasures of the collections are two of the fifteen presentation swords voted by the Continental Congress to Revolutionary War heroes—those awarded to Lt. Col. Tench Tilghman and Lt. Col. Samuel Smith, both of Maryland. The collections include infantry muskets and fusils, rifles, cavalry and sea service pistols, officers’ small swords, horsemen’s sabers and carbines, spontoons and bayonets. Other military equipment, such as powder horns, cartridge boxes and canteens, contribute to our understanding of the tools needed to wage war in the eighteenth century.

https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/discover-the-collections/armaments/

redredred · M

@ElwoodBlues “A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the People to keep and carry food shall not be infringed”

Now, who has the right to keep and carry food, the well balanced breakfast or the People?

Also, if the rights guaranteed under the second amendment are limited to 18th century muskets, the first amendment rights are limited to hand-operated, sheet fed, vertical letterpress printing.

ElwoodBlues · M

@redredred A militia is a group of people, and the subject of a sentence about people. A well balanced breakfast is not a group of people.

This idea of connecting the 2A with militias does not originate with me. It goes back to the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) which "requires certain types of firearms, such as fully automatic firearms and short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with the Miscellaneous Tax Unit."

Some guys were caught transporting a sawed off shotgun, and SCOTUS (US v Miller) ruled the NFA Constitutional and said sawed off shotguns had no place in a militia, therefore were not protected by the 2A.

Fast forward to 2008 (DC v Heller) when Scalia overrules the Miller decision and says we can ignore the words about militia in the 2A.
"Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause."

So originalist Scalia says we can ignore the clause about militia even though SCOTUS took it into account for a solid 75 years. So much for precedent, so much for stare decisis, so much for the actual text of the subject of the one-sentence 2nd A!!

Question for you. Suppose you have your gun at your belt & hands raised and a cop fires a shot at you and misses. Are you within your rights to self protect by shooting the cop? Once he's used deadly force, can you??

redredred · M

@ElwoodBlues Had he been able to do so, did George Floyd have the right to shoot his killer?

The syntactical point I made is still valid despite your hair-splitting objection.

ElwoodBlues · M

@redredred Nope. The subject of the 2A is people, and the 2A is about people. And it's just silly to pretend that the "prefatory clause" written by the founders has no meaning. Scalia believes in original text except when it's inconvenient.

And you've ducked my question. I was thinking more of the unarmed guy in Akron who was hit by 60 bullets.

redredred · M

@ElwoodBlues The Miller Analogy test is a standard test for intelligence. I’m sorry you’re having trouble with an obvious analogy. That speaks a bit about you.

The police function is defined in law. Resisting a lawful arrest is itself a crime. I admit I don’t have the details of the case you mentioned but the courts have held that deadly force may be used by a citizen in the event of life threatening police misconduct.

ElwoodBlues · M

@redredred

Miller Analogy test is a standard test for intelligence

Ducking the question with a red herring!!!

Resisting a lawful arrest is itself a crime

Are you defining 90 bullets fired at a man's back as "lawful arrest"?

redredred · M

@ElwoodBlues no but you’d have to read the rest of my response to understand what said. And the sentence I wrote about breakfast is the analogy I referred to so there’s no red herring involved; not the first logical or factual error you’ve made just today.

ElwoodBlues · M

@redredred You're ducking the question of whether or not "militia" has anything to do with 2A, and the Miller Analogy Test is a weak attempt at an ad hominem fallacy. Scalia says "militia" can be ignored with respect to the 2A, superfluous text, do you agree?

Second, you're ducking the question of whether a citizen subjected to deadly force by the police has the right to respond to the police with deadly force. "Lawful arrest" is a red herring.

, the first amendment rights are limited to hand-operated, sheet fed, vertical letterpress printing.

FALSE. The 1A also applies to speech, as separate from the press.

redredred · M

@ElwoodBlues I haven’t ducked anything. I’ve answered your question. A “militia” is a separate cohort of the population from the “people”. The militia is, as indicated subject to regulation. The rights of the people are not to be infringed. If any question still remain for you on this point read the rest of the constitution and see what is meant by “the people” in any context.

Regarding police action, as I’ve already answered, resisting a lawful arrest is a crime. Being subject to a life-threatening criminal act by anyone, including the police, confers the right to use force, up to and including deadly force for protection.

And I still insist that the analogy I presented is absolutely sound and your objection is ideological not based is any flaw in the analogy.