Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

In the context of the second amendment, "well regulated" simply means "the ability to shoot and hit what you are aiming at." See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regulate. Definition number 3 fits best but all four definitions point to "the ability to shoot and hit what you are aiming at" in the context of the militia. Each member of the militia had to own arms so that they could practice so that their shooting was accurate or if you will "well regulated."

 

One and two below read the same.

 

1) 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.

2) A militia practiced and effective in the use of arms, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now who is the militia?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

Edited July 22, 2015 by waitforufo

[imatfaal]

 

And they know which one applies, and even what "put in good order" means for a militia. Suitsble weapons in good working condition, for example, at minimum.

 

Give up on ignorant "interpretation". If you think you need the Constitution to say something different (you don't, unless your agenda is actually government enforced disarmament), amend it.

 

"put in good order" - by whom? put expects an outside influence. As does "adjust"- both normally have modifiers if the action is reflexive

 

Why is my interpretation ignorant - because it is not "well educated" ? Or because it does not accord with the current interpretation of scotus and your desired interpretation. I have five texts books on statutory interpretation in front of me - now answer me this: if it was easy and just a simple task of spotting the "well educated" and discarding the "ignorant" why do all these varying concepts of interpretation exist? Why was marbury v madison necessary?

 

I would love to see the constitution amended - but so many americans are wedded to their foundation myth of the mystically wise and enlightned founders that I don't think we will ever see the constitution amended again. Thus as the legislature/states won't amend, and the judiciary cannot amend then the only alternative is re-interpretation; let's not pretend this hasn't happened before.

[StringJunky]

 

... but so many americans are wedded to their foundation myth of the mystically wise and enlightned founders

Hit. Nail. Head.

[overtone]

"put in good order" - by whom?

By its members. Who else? Who puts a well regulated household in good order? A well regulated ship? A well regulated life?

 

 

Why is my interpretation ignorant - because it is not "well educated" ?

How should I know? You're certainly not alone, or even extreme - we have posters claiming the National Guard is a militia, and that"regulated" means the Federal or State governments have imposed regulations.

 

 

I have five texts books on statutory interpretation in front of me - now answer me this: if it was easy and just a simple task of spotting the "well educated" and discarding the "ignorant" why do all these varying concepts of interpretation exist? Why was marbury v madison necessary?

That's irrelevant. The topic was the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

 

Nobody is claiming that all laws, amendments, etc, are clearly written, and nobody is claiming that there are no issues of interpretation in the application of even the clearest of wordings to unanticipated circumstances (such as, say, automatic handguns - which are not militia grade weapons, and might be viewed as threatening rather than defending).

 

The claim is that the wording of the 2nd Amendment is clear and in plain English. There is no legitimate, informed way to radically alter the reading of it.

 

 

 

I would love to see the constitution amended - but so many americans are wedded to their foundation myth of the mystically wise and enlightned founders that I don't think we will ever see the constitution amended again.

Don't bet big money. The Citizen's United ruling, the ERA, and a couple of other matters, have tapped a solid public consensus.

 

Thus as the legislature/states won't amend, and the judiciary cannot amend then the only alternative is re-interpretation; let's not pretend this hasn't happened before.

It's happened before, and it's been bad news. Citizen's United? We don't want the Supreme Court "interpreting" in that Orwellisn fashion.

 

The larger point is that all kinds of alternatives exist that do not involve the very dubious approach of establishing the Constitution as something the government can set aside at will. Effective and serious gun regulation is quite possible within the current Constitution. And it has broad public support.

 

Just quit alienating half that support. Isolate the wingnuts on one side, and talk sense on the other. No more statistical screwballing, emotional posturing, shifting of ground and slandering of gun owners. Let your neighbors have their guns, pass good laws and git 'er done.

 

So this isn't an issue:

 

but so many americans are wedded to their foundation myth of the mystically wise and enlightned founders

No they aren't. It's not that they think the Founder's are all wise, so much as that they think the anti-gun folks are all-the-opposite. And there's way too much evidence that they have point.

Edited July 22, 2015 by overtone

[waitforufo]

More on well regulated.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

Here is text from a book on a well regulated clock.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=76gAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=a+well+regulated+clock&source=bl&ots=VOohDTjJU6&sig=BnvJsLus9-1YpT1ePbk8IzPCX58&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgKahUKEwiAmJWkvu_GAhVJVYgKHdVJDbY#v=onepage&q=a%20well%20regulated%20clock&f=false

 

I don't see anywhere in that book where they say the well regulated clock is controlled by the government.

[iNow]

Here is text from a book on a well regulated clock. <snip> I don't see anywhere in that book where they say the well regulated clock is controlled by the government.

Thank you for exemplifying why progress and rational discussion of this issue is so challenging. Reducing needless death from guns while respecting personal liberties and protected rights is a complex topic that apparently has far too few participants approaching it in good faith and with shared understanding. Edited July 22, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Thank you for exemplifying why progress and rational discussion of this issue is so challenging. Reducing needless death from guns while respecting personal liberties and protected rights is a complex topic that apparently has far too few participants approaching it in good faith and with shared understanding.

I don't see it as complex. Perhaps it is complex to you because the second amendment can't be construed to meet your opinion. I'm sure it must be frustrating to find that our constitution was written to protect the rights of the people given to the people by nature or nature's god. Rights inherent to our being. I also struggle to understand how it is "rational" to pretend that a plan common English sentence means something other than what is written. Such pretending is the death of "rational discussion" is it not?

 

Perhaps now that we understand that "well regulated" does not mean controlled by government, we can move on to "shall not be infringed." "Shall not" seems absolute to me. Perhaps some of you who favor gun control can explain how any level of "control" does not "infringe", even in the teeniest bit, on my natural inherent right as one of the people to keep and bear arms?

 

Finally, I don't find it irrational to be very protective of my rights. Especially when people like to pretend that they don't even exist. Roll back this right, what right is next, and how far back do you want them rolled?

Edited July 23, 2015 by waitforufo

[Prometheus]

... the rights of the people given to the people by nature or nature's god.

 

Finally, I don't find it irrational to be very protective of my rights. Especially when people like to pretend that they don't even exist. Roll back this right, what right is next, and how far back do you want them rolled?

 

i don't quite follow this line of reasoning.

 

I am quite happy to have my right to rape any female i so choose - endowed to me by nature by the physical strength i possess over others - taken from me.

 

Apologies for the hyperbole but i just want to illustrate that in many contexts humanity has been quite happy to forego what were once rights. It is not a case of all rights or no rights, but a question of where we draw the line, and sometimes we redraw the line: hopefully guided by evidence and wisdom.

 

Unless you are suggesting rights to be something somehow bestowed upon us by the universe or one god or another?

[waitforufo]

 

i don't quite follow this line of reasoning.

 

I am quite happy to have my right to rape any female i so choose - endowed to me by nature by the physical strength i possess over others - taken from me.

 

Apologies for the hyperbole but i just want to illustrate that in many contexts humanity has been quite happy to forego what were once rights. It is not a case of all rights or no rights, but a question of where we draw the line, and sometimes we redraw the line: hopefully guided by evidence and wisdom.

 

Unless you are suggesting rights to be something somehow bestowed upon us by the universe or one god or another?

You have no right to rape. Rape restricts liberty. The constitution of the US protects individual liberty.

 

The foundation of the US constitution is based on the concept on natural rights which are inherent to our being. The US constitution simply recognizes these inherent rights. It does not establish them.

 

Rip the second amendment from the US constitution and my right to bear arms will remain intact.

Edited July 22, 2015 by waitforufo

[zapatos]

The foundation of the US constitution is based on the concept on natural rights which are inherent to our being. The US constitution simply recognizes these inherent rights. It does not establish them.

Unfortunately 'natural rights' are just a concept created by man. There is no agreement on what constitutes natural rights. Natural rights and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee unless there is someone willing and able to guarantee those rights. If you rip the second amendment from the US constitution, your right to bear arms will exist only in your mind.

 

Perhaps some of you who favor gun control can explain how any level of "control" does not "infringe", even in the teeniest bit, on my natural inherent right as one of the people to keep and bear arms?

Gun control already exists. You cannot own a machine gun. Some states require permits, limited magazine size, etc.

You cannot look at the second amendment in isolation. It is part of a larger document that ensures your rights are controlled to the extent that they are not allowed to infringe on the rights of others.

[Prometheus]

You have no right to rape. Rape restricts liberty. The constitution of the US protects individual liberty.

 

The foundation of the US constitution is based on the concept on natural rights which are inherent to our being. The US constitution simply recognizes these inherent rights. It does not establish them.

 

Rip the second amendment from the US constitution and my right to bear arms will remain intact.

 

So you regard your right to bear arms as an inalienable right bestowed upon you by virtue of being human?

 

Fair enough, just sounds a bit gun-toting crazy to me this side of the pond, but that's irrelevant. Let me see if i understand correctly.

 

The right is something humans have decided upon - it's just that these rights supersede the agency of the government. So if the government tried to ban guns you would argue this right is mine by virtue of my birth not the government so you cannot take it away?

 

But what if the 'will of the people' had it in mind to ban guns, then lobbied the government to make the necessary changes (if any are required). In your view could this legitimately change such rights?

 

Also, i gather from this thread that the right to bear arms is important to potentially overthrow, or at least oppose, any tyrannical government? Civilians taking on the US military with guns sounds a little mad. Surely you have other means by which to oppose a government. Would not a campaign of mass civil disruption not be much more effective - a government needs people to govern, starve it long enough and it will die.

[zapatos]

 

Also, i gather from this thread that the right to bear arms is important to potentially overthrow, or at least oppose, any tyrannical government? Civilians taking on the US military with guns sounds a little mad. Surely you have other means by which to oppose a government. Would not a campaign of mass civil disruption not be much more effective - a government needs people to govern, starve it long enough and it will die.

Arms are meant to be a last resort; the Constitution provides the preferred mechanism to oppose the government.

[waitforufo]

I don't have much time for this today, but I will take time to respond to this.

Fair enough, just sounds a bit gun-toting crazy to me this side of the pond, but that's irrelevant. Let me see if i understand correctly.

By "this side of the pond" do you mean that magical place where they have royal families? Royal families where people are born better than the common folk. Born so much better that you pay taxes to keep up their palaces, gardens, and mow their lawns. Then you pay guards for these places to keep out the riff raff. That side of the pond? Who's crazy?

 

Any American that believes that this country was not founded on the principal natural rights must have missed an important civics lesson. So if you missed that lesson Wiki does a pretty good job.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

After you are done with that you can read the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

[dimreepr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33647535

 

How many more people have to die before your shame overcomes your need to hold on to the privilege of owning a lethal weapon?

[waitforufo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33647535

 

How many more people have to die before your shame overcomes your need to hold on to the privilege of owning a lethal weapon?

Not a privilege a right.

[dimreepr]

Not a privilege a right.

 

 

No it’s not; people die FOR rights not because of them.

 

 

Edit... Besides that doesn't answer the question.

Edited July 24, 2015 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

 

 

No it’s not; people die FOR rights not because of them.

 

 

Edit... Besides that doesn't answer the question.

It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the Bill of Privileges.

 

You cannot legislate away a Right without changing the Constitution.

[StringJunky]

It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the Bill of Privileges.

 

You cannot legislate away a Right without changing the Constitution.

Rights are fundamental to ALL citizens ...people can be arbitrarily banned from owning guns, therefore, it's a privilege.

[zapatos]

Rights are fundamental to ALL citizens ...people can be arbitrarily banned from owning guns, therefore, it's a privilege.

You'll have to define for me what you mean by 'arbitrarily'. It is not possible for the state to pick my name out of the phone book and write legislation that prevents me from owning a gun.

[StringJunky]

You'll have to define for me what you mean by 'arbitrarily'. It is not possible for the state to pick my name out of the phone book and write legislation that prevents me from owning a gun.

I meant subject to a ban due to some predefined default,, could have worded that better... I didn't mean random and on a whim. It's not as inalienable as a human right.

[dimreepr]

It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. Not the Bill of Privileges.

 

You cannot legislate away a Right without changing the Constitution.

 

 

Call it what you will but it’s noble to fight/die for the right to education for all, the right to be considered equal etc...

 

I can’t think of anything noble in fighting (and others dying) for the right to kill; the gun has no other purpose than to injure or kill.

[zapatos]

Yes, Rights can be taken away, but a certain threshold must be met to do so that is much higher than for a privilege. For example, if I am determined to be mentally ill, my right to own a gun is suspended.

 

Even in the UK, what you define as rights can be taken away given the correct circumstances, even if they are fundamental to all.

 

the gun has no other purpose than to injure or kill.

My guns do.

[dimreepr]

What's different about your guns?

[zapatos]

Just the purpose is different.

 

My shotgun's purpose is shooting skeet.

The purpose of my .22 is target shooting.

In more general terms, the purpose of my guns is entertainment.

 

By the same token, the purpose of my knives is not to injure or kill either, it is to prepare food.

Just because some people purpose their guns for death does not mean all people do.

[dimreepr]

Just the purpose is different.

 

My shotgun's purpose is shooting skeet.

The purpose of my .22 is target shooting.

In more general terms, the purpose of my guns is entertainment.

 

 

There are non lethal versions of both so is your right to, potentially lethal, entertainment worth a life?