This. Thank you.
Please throw up when I do something this stupid so that I don't end up with inexplicable zeroes in the field.
No, it isn't. The majority vote was in favor, and it was ENTIRELY written by Scalia - and yes I read it. He clearly misuses the language (not accidentally, not subtly - 100% for political purpose.)
Don't be confused about me either, I agree with the decision, but Scalia's opinion is ridiculous.
OK then, let's stick with the language. You're prepared to dispense with all of the founders' other personal-arms-ownership-related writings and commentary at the time because you're can't get your head around their punctuation choice as you seek to conflate and flip upside down the words they've chosen to use.
Not at all. Suggest a writer and particular writing and we can discuss. You're being quite vague - pick something that one of the writers of the 2nd amendment wrote which you claim contradicts my statements. Your choice.
Why? Because I'm a gun owner who can be honest about the constitution as well as the political realities of one 'Honorable' Justice Scalia?
There are conservative Justices worthy of respect, Scalia is not one of them.
It's a 930 - I use it to hunt too. It certainly puts holes in things though.
My Dad told that they had them firing Thompson's in UDT school in 1962 and that the damn thing almost lifted him right over when firing full auto.
What I dislike is the virtual banning of certain firearms. I can buy (and own) a fully automatic AK-47. The tax stamp puts it out of the reach of nearly everyone.
It's not the tax stamp that gets you (iirc it's around $200) it's that there's a limited supply of pre-1996 full auto weapons in the U.S. (would have been a great time to have these in stock!) I hear that MP-40's go for $20k.
Anyhow, the mish-mash of legislation is because no one can sit down and have a rational discussion about guns sadly.
I do not intend to harm anyone with it and the about the only time it comes out of the safe is when I take it to the disabled vets "machine gun shoot."
The problem isn't you though
Personally, a mossberg is more than enough self defense for me. I use the Mark 23 because I have big hands and it's a great target shooting weapon.
You're actually completely wrong. If you really want a comprehensive examination of the language of the second amendment (rather that just blather on cluelessly about it)
Oh, you mean I should read Scalia's *opinion* (which is what you linked to) about what it is supposed to mean despite 4 of the supreme court justices claiming that he's intentionally reading it wrong, and the other 4 are notoriously silent on the topic?
I was actually glad that the decision went this way, but it had nothing to do with how the second amendment is actually written, and everything to do with a conservative court having a 5-4 majority.
Rather than relying on a supreme court justice with a clear political agenda, why don't you study some American history...?
I know exactly what it means. And the authors are clear that having a well regulated militia is necessary. Are you foggy about that, somehow?
Where have I suggested you can't have a well regulated militia?
They're also very clear, having stipulated that, just like with their British overlords had one, they're going to have a continually armed and well regulated military
You are making it quite clear that you do not know what the phrase "well regulated" means in 18th/19th century English. It doesn't mean subjected to rules or laws - it means "normal" or "as one would expect."
You also clearly have some other, bizarre, interpretation where you separate the "well regulated militia" from "the people" - as if the writers were just lazy and couldn't be bothered to write two sentences rather than one.
The "people" referenced in the amendment ARE the constituents of the well regulated militia. It is saying "let's make this clear that when we say militia we mean a normal militia made up of civilians - NOT the troops of a standing army."
Again, pointing out that each of these amendments was written in such a way as to restrict the federal government from overreaching STATE governments.
This concept of modern America being a giant nation that happens to have geographic distinctions called 'states' is a relatively new thing. In 1791, states were basically little countries unto themselves that happened to share strong cultural similarities.
Their urge to use that word was a reflection of how distasteful they found the notion of a large standing federal military
They who? The word militia is used because the states need to be assured that if there ever was a federal army the federal government would be bound by law to allow states (and smaller representative local governments) to maintain militias - in other words "if you ever have a standing army, we are still entitled to have our own militias - not that we don't trust you, it's just that we don't trust you that much.)
Do you foresee a situation where the right to free expression or the right to assemble perhaps should be considered just a little too dangerous, and we should consider taking that away?
What on earth are you talking about now? Is this your odd segue to turn an academic discussion of the grammar of the second amendment into a political discussion of your personal views?
...if you think that's also a "living" amendment that's worth scrapping...
What? Who wants to scrap any amendments? I think you've made some assumptions about what was being discussed that was neither stated nor intended.
This has been a discussion about second amendment LANGUAGE usage. Not personal political views.
I realized, long ago, that I can not be pro-choice. I am choice-accepting.
Pretty much where I am. Almost as if I divorce myself from the legal issue simply because I'm not female. But as to the moral issue - it's reprehensible unless it's a question of the mother's life versus the baby's.
That is one of the major reasons the Revolution started...
I would rephrase that as the march on Concord being the British crossing the rubicon. The British marched to capture an arms cache that belonged to the colonial militia.
And yours doesn't mention 'the people'
It is because the previous poster already did, I merely asked him what he thought the "well regulated militia" meant since he clearly left that inconvenient part out.
..is known as a prefactory clause...
I think you're referring to a prefatory clause - and the only people who consider it prefatory are those who want the primary focus of the sentence to be what is, in point of fact, the clause that makes clear that the militia is not to be confused with a standing army.
...short of conviction(or commitment),,,
I'm not sure how you can argue that "shall not infringe" mean the government has no say (as you do in your last paragraph) in the regulation of arms, yet you make a spurious case for keeping them out of the hands of convicts and the insane - that's a bit hypocritical - don't you think?
I own a handgun, and being as objective as possible - the amendment rather clearly states that the federal government cannot deprive the individual states from bearing arms in some form of a militia.
The fact that people are constantly trying to twist those words to mean what it is they want is the problem with the second amendment; however, as I'd previously stated elsewhere - I believe the writers of the amendment intended for it to be less than specific just so it would stand the test of time and be argued in order to fit the times in which it was being applied.
Really rather ingenious of them actually.
I'm ex-military, own one gun - (target shooting), and I have always been pro-choice but am having a harder time with it than ever these past few years.
You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like:...
Given that you clearly do not know what the term "well regulated" meant in 1791, it's much easier to believe that you don't know what the phrase means - and telling people what the people who wrote the document *intended* is borderline delusional.
I'm looking at the language and purpose objectively, you're clearly looking at it subjectively; otherwise you wouldn't have projected whatever it is you *think* my interpretation is when I've not stated it at all - instead asking the other poster what they believe the phrase means when they clearly ignored it.
Just for the record I'm not anti-gun and I'm not gun-crazy either.
To save you the time - 'well regulated' was a turn of phrase that meant 'in the proper form of' - or for a terse and modern interpretation - "normal" and militias were in 1791 primarily organized at the state level as a unifying body.
So, what the document says (the amendment that was passed by Congress) is basically that the federal government shall not infringe upon the rights of local government militias (primarily targeting the states who were to ratify the amendment - albeit in grammatically different form.)
It's open to lots of interpretation - but that's how I believe it should be - and I hope it is what they intended. I don't think the early American government believed it could be specific and have these amendments stand the test of time (and they've been proven right over and over.)
Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.
That being said, I enjoy breaking out my Mark 23 periodically and punching holes in targets.
What, exactly, would *you* not allow between consenting adults?