Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
What I take issue with is the absolute separation of qualification from justification. Yes, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a justification, but within it being justification, why is it not a qualification? You've already said that logically if the justification is wrong then the operative is flawed, but doesn't that suggest that it's much more than an explanation?
|
The justification and the operative are distinct, but they're not totally unrelated. The justification is an expansion of the operative, and provides the underlying reason why the right exists. If the operative is based on flawed reason, it can be assumed to be invalid. However, it is incorrect to assume that this means the operative and justification are equitable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Barak_Guru
After Martian's analysis and willravel's insistence, yes, it has become clearer to me: The right of "the people" to bear arms is maintained within the context of a "well regulated militia." The first part of the phrasing reads like a conditional clause: the "people" that it refers to have been identified as those within a "well regulated militia." That is to say, the reason why "the people" have right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of operating within a "well regulated militia."
|
I considered this interpretation, but rejected it. The phrasing is very explicit and there's no need to read any more into it than is already there. There is a distinction made between the people and the militia that is necessary in order for the right to be non-restrictive.
In other words, if the right to keep and bear arms had been intended to apply only to a well regulated militia (setting aside for a moment precisely what the definition of that phrase is), I believe it would have been worded as such. That it says the right of
the people, which is elsewhere in the document used to refer collectively to the entire population of the United States, would seem to indicate that the right is intended to be applicable to all citizens regardless of military status.
Viewed from an empathic perspective, we can assume that the founding fathers of the United States, who'd just been involved in an insurrection and were consequently rather anti-establishment, would've rejected the idea of restricting the right to armament to any regulated force. Arguing on that basis seems a bit ridiculous to me; I believe that a more effective argument for gun control laws would be to challenge the validity of the amendment itself. On the other hand, this argument would likely be equally unsuccessful as well, as attempts to suggest that the principles contained within the American constitution may be flawed or no longer relevant are often met with an almost religious fanaticism (see willravel's reaction to my implication of such above). Ironically, this sort of unquestioning obedience seems to me like precisely the sort of thing the founding fathers were trying to safeguard against.