Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Like your guns? Another gun control thread

BlueMan · 05-26-2004, 06:46 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MooseMan3000
BlueMan:

I'm not sure how you took it, but I just want to go on the record as saying I personally believe the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms... at least, it does today. However, I can *also* read that amendment as "A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the people may maintain one." I never said I thought the National Guard was a militia. In the sense that I *can* see the Amendment, a militia is a privately controlled, as in controlled by the "PEOPLE" you kept mentioning, entity.

First, I want to make clear I wasn't taking any personal shots at you. I just don't buy into that argument. Taken as a whole, every amendment in the Bill of Rights protects indidvidual rights, and every time "the people" is mentioned, it means "the people", not the state, or the militia, or any other body. It's the same "people" as is used in "We, The People of the United States of America". Unfortunately, some people throw out context in favor of making a definition fit their preferences. The Second Amendment taken in context with the entirety of the document protects an individual right.

Also, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is undefined. The "Founding Fathers," as we are so fond of calling them, never said "keep guns." They said "keep arms."

Which is defined as "Instruments or weapons of offense or defense", i.e. guns are not the only definition, but they are included in the definition. This definition also extends to knives, etc.

If you take the Second Amendment as concrete, as you said you do, then technically, I'm allowed to have a nuclear warhead. I'm allowed to develop chemical and biological weapons. I'm allowed to "keep and bear" my hyrdogen bomb while I'm walking down the street, in front of your house.

The part I take as "concrete" is the assertion that it is an individual right, and not the right of a nebulous "militia".
Which, even if you go that way, a militia is the citizenry who are capable of bearing arms, so either way, it's not meant as a right of government. You'll note in my earlier arguments that I stated that I -could- agree with an interpretation that it was meant to designate personal arms, i.e. rifles and other small arms. Nuclear weapons, the absurd extreme of this argument, are on a whole other level of weaponry that should be tightly controlled for very valid reasons. No reasonable person would argue that individuals should have a nuclear bomb in their possesion. That argument is hyperbole usually used to take discussions such as this completely off point.

But obviously this is complete shit. If you agree that any limitations can be set on "arms" ownership, then you CANNOT assert that the Second Amendment is absolutely clear.

You missed my point. What I state is clear is that the 2nd guarantees an -individual- right, and I stand by that argument for the reasons I have articulated before, that you cannot show me in context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where "the people" refers to anything other than the body of individual citizens. When the language of the document means the state, it says, "the state", when it means the Congress, it says "The Congress", when it means "the people", it -says- "the people". Other "interpretations" are deliberate twisting of words to try to slam the round peg of the Constitution into the square hole of the anti-gun crowd's bias.

The Constitution, and any subsequent amendments, were specifically written as NOT to be clear, so they can apply to situations in the future.

I don't believe it is written to be vague. It -is- written in a formal type of English that very few people seem to completely comprehend anymore, but the people that wrote it did so with the stated intent to limit the powers of the federal government and reserve authority to the states and to the people. They did not want a strong central government. They didn't want wiggle room. The Bill of Rights was intended as a clarification of things they did not specificially address in the Constitution. The amendments are written as brief, to the point sentences. They say what they say. If you want to change what they say, they left you a mechanism for that in the amendment process. As it is, the Constitution has been stretched and tortured to the point that the Fed is -far- more powerful than the Founders ever intended.

I appreciate your response, and respect your opinions, I simply disagree, so thanks for the reasoned reply.

05-26-2004, 06:46 AM	#13 (permalink)
BlueMan Upright	[QUOTE]Originally posted by MooseMan3000 BlueMan: I'm not sure how you took it, but I just want to go on the record as saying I personally believe the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms... at least, it does today. However, I can also read that amendment as "A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the people may maintain one." I never said I thought the National Guard was a militia. In the sense that I can see the Amendment, a militia is a privately controlled, as in controlled by the "PEOPLE" you kept mentioning, entity. First, I want to make clear I wasn't taking any personal shots at you. I just don't buy into that argument. Taken as a whole, every amendment in the Bill of Rights protects indidvidual rights, and every time "the people" is mentioned, it means "the people", not the state, or the militia, or any other body. It's the same "people" as is used in "We, The People of the United States of America". Unfortunately, some people throw out context in favor of making a definition fit their preferences. The Second Amendment taken in context with the entirety of the document protects an individual right. Also, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is undefined. The "Founding Fathers," as we are so fond of calling them, never said "keep guns." They said "keep arms." Which is defined as "Instruments or weapons of offense or defense", i.e. guns are not the only definition, but they are included in the definition. This definition also extends to knives, etc. If you take the Second Amendment as concrete, as you said you do, then technically, I'm allowed to have a nuclear warhead. I'm allowed to develop chemical and biological weapons. I'm allowed to "keep and bear" my hyrdogen bomb while I'm walking down the street, in front of your house. The part I take as "concrete" is the assertion that it is an individual right, and not the right of a nebulous "militia". Which, even if you go that way, a militia is the citizenry who are capable of bearing arms, so either way, it's not meant as a right of government. You'll note in my earlier arguments that I stated that I -could- agree with an interpretation that it was meant to designate personal arms, i.e. rifles and other small arms. Nuclear weapons, the absurd extreme of this argument, are on a whole other level of weaponry that should be tightly controlled for very valid reasons. No reasonable person would argue that individuals should have a nuclear bomb in their possesion. That argument is hyperbole usually used to take discussions such as this completely off point. But obviously this is complete shit. If you agree that any limitations can be set on "arms" ownership, then you CANNOT assert that the Second Amendment is absolutely clear. You missed my point. What I state is clear is that the 2nd guarantees an -individual- right, and I stand by that argument for the reasons I have articulated before, that you cannot show me in context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where "the people" refers to anything other than the body of individual citizens. When the language of the document means the state, it says, "the state", when it means the Congress, it says "The Congress", when it means "the people", it -says- "the people". Other "interpretations" are deliberate twisting of words to try to slam the round peg of the Constitution into the square hole of the anti-gun crowd's bias. The Constitution, and any subsequent amendments, were specifically written as NOT to be clear, so they can apply to situations in the future. I don't believe it is written to be vague. It -is- written in a formal type of English that very few people seem to completely comprehend anymore, but the people that wrote it did so with the stated intent to limit the powers of the federal government and reserve authority to the states and to the people. They did not want a strong central government. They didn't want wiggle room. The Bill of Rights was intended as a clarification of things they did not specificially address in the Constitution. The amendments are written as brief, to the point sentences. They say what they say. If you want to change what they say, they left you a mechanism for that in the amendment process. As it is, the Constitution has been stretched and tortured to the point that the Fed is -far- more powerful than the Founders ever intended. I appreciate your response, and respect your opinions, I simply disagree, so thanks for the reasoned reply.