yep...no right in the BOR is absolute, IMO.

see, now I would have sworn they were, which is why the 5th amendment states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. silly me. I forgot we're in the liberal age.

The justification is separate from the operative; They are two independent statements. The justification supports the operative, but does not limit or qualify it.

The justification statement could indeed have been included as a footnote, rather than as a part of the amendment itself, and the meaning would be unchanged. I would imagine this was not done because it's often considered poor style to annotate a document consisting of one sentence.

I'm viewing this from a logical perspective, interpreting the words quite literally. There are, of course, other ways to go about it.

It would indeed appear that way, wouldn't it?

EDIT -

A right is an artificial construct, and is therefore defined by it's creators and maintained or even altered by it's enforcers. Thinking of it as inalienable is silly.

Nope....inalienable means it cant be taken away...it doesnt mean it cant be regulated.

Do you think a mass murderer has a right to bear arms or can the government deprive said person of that right...to protect one segment of the people from the excesses of another?

Are we changing the subject to due process now?

Legally, there are eventual limits to freedom. Or would you like live in a country where one can be picked up off the street by a cult for the purpose of being sacrificed to a giant gerbil? That is, after all, absolute religious freedom. Or maybe you'd like to arm prisoners? After all, it's absolute gun ownership rights.

I think the issue is that the grammar used in the amendment is no longer correct, or at least is no longer normal; like saying "thy". I think we'd be better off deciding how this would correctly translate to a modern (less awkward) phrasing. I tried to do that above, but it seems that you believe the justification and operative are, for all intents and purposes, almost like different sentences.
My translation would read: An organized fighting force, separate from the government, shall not have their guns taken away from them.
Yours would more likely read: The government shall not infringe on an individual's right to bear arms. An armed public is necessary to guarantee the security of a free state.

Does this sound about right?

That is exactly right. A justification by definition an explanation of why a course of action is necessary. The justification statement is an explanation of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Interpreting it as a limitation on who is granted that right causes the two statements (or two subsections of the same statement, if you prefer to view it that way) to become contradictory.

what he said.

read my other post a few above.

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."

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?
I've never known you to dodge a question. DC and I have both asked directly about the worst-case consequences of making rights absolute. We've both cited examples of how bad things could get with completely unchecked freedom.

Welcome to the liberal side of the force. http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/vader.gif

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.

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.

I don't do fanaticism. And I'm surprised you think I said this (can you point out where?).

I'd like to see the Second Amendment overruled by a new amendment, even my interpretation. The idea behind the amendment, making legal the potential for insurrection, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If people are going to rise up against their government, said government is not going to pay attention to laws that prevent them from squashing the insurrection. And the insurgents wouldn't care about the Second Amendment. They'd use bombs and other improvised weapons that wouldn't normally be covered by the Second. Gone are the days when armies would line up on a battlefield and open fire on each other. Gone are the days when the Second Amendment was relevant.

This statement:

read to me as disbelief. I understood it to be a refutation of my logic, which would carry with it the implication that you believe the second amendment to be correct.

Tonality is notoriously difficult to interpret in text based media and I apologize if I have misrepresented you.

No worries.

i wouldn't pack heat, so that's a non-issue

I don't think the idea of deterring an oppressive government is obsolete, but I agree that an amendment in language less ambiguous to the modern reader would be beneficial. I would replace "militia" with "populace," but I think we seriously differ there.

If the supreme court were less partisan, I'd want them to decide on it. For the time being, the only real option is to create a new amendment. And that's friggin hard.

On the one side are liberal madmen like myself who believe that the ideas behind the Second Amendment are antiquated and on the other side we have people who believe that the right to bear arms is inalienable. I can't imagine a wording that appeases both sides, which would mean compromise. And with that, a thread is born.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...83#post2440583

So, guns at work. Good or bad?

We don't have all the details as yet, but as I understand it, gun laws are quite relaxed in Kentucky. You can carry a gun and it is culturally accepted.

Are you a little surprised given that gun-friendly environment that other workers did not gun the man down as soon as he drew his Colt?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...zp7mQD91H4EN03

A quick run down on Kentucky gun laws:

http://www.gunlawguide.com/Kentucky.htm

not surprised at all the the gunman ended the rampage before someone else with a gun showed up. Being a workplace, I imagine it had a no weapons policy.....which was followed by everyone but the one person who decided to kill a bunch of people.

Again, we don't know all the facts, but I do know Kentucky allows people to keep weapons in their vehicles on company property. Did the gunman go to his car to get the gun? Did he have it on his person?

Wow, the discussion in April was a bunch of pedantic back-and-forth and I'm glad this thread died.

Would you prefer banality instead? This is the Internet, after all....

heh, in my personal experience, I have worked with a dude who carried a loaded .22 Derringer in his jeans pocket every day. probably loaded w/ hollow points.
I'd trust him w/ my life and I did. since I work w/ metal in a shop and in the field I need to trust my co workers with my life. guns or no. if I worked where people email co workers 3 cubicles away, I'd go insane with the absurdity of my existence.

if I worked with a wacko I'd be uncomfertable with him weather he had a gun otr not.

I don't own any guns aside from my cap gun collection. there are a few WW2 era guns I'd love to own, Broomhandle Mauser w/ shoulder stock and a Luger, also w/ detachable shoulder stock. these IMHO are some really cool examples of industrial design and I'd imagine fun to shoot at a range. but I've never gone to a shooting range so...ehh...maybe someday.

but I'd be really PO'd if my right was taken away to collect these guns someday
Florida is a high crime state, the Gunshine state...a lot of gang activity. alot of drugs coming in.

the fact is criminals and wackos will always have weapons. personally I wouldn't feel safer knowing I couldn't buy a gun if I chose to.

I don't really think "the people" can defend themselves against the Govt. with just guns, if the Govt. wants to drop the hammer they will and they have much bigger guns. our only hope in this case is a revolt of the military towards the Govt. (which is a really good reason to have everyone serve some time in the military, not that I ever did) if it really came to that there's nothing an "insurgent" in Iraq can do that an American can't figure out how to do too. it sure wouldn't be pretty.

if I needed a gun, but couldn't buy one I'd just make one. you can't legislate reality away.

just my opinion anyway.

But a very valid one. I for one am glad to see someone who sees guns as art. There is no one thing that sums up the aesthetic of the late industrial age for me like an M-2 machine gun.

Anyhoo, I just wanted to assure you that the military is not filled with mindless drones. If I was ever ordered to act against US citizens I can assure you that it would not be a simple "Yes sir!" that left my lips...

Yes, I especially admire their homo- and autoerotic overtones (which can easily be interpreted from a postmodern perspective). The M-2 is no exception.

I guess it's a matter of interpretation...

Of course. We were talking about art. I tend to go to the most straightforward interpretations of the more current sociocultural criticisms and theories. And when you start talking about historical objects as art, one tends to be informed by the postmodern and conceptual movements of the 20th century.

Guns as tools rendered as guns as fetishized objects. That is a powerful thing to think on, especially when there are those who see them--whether consciously or not--as fetishized tools. Maybe this last idea is much of what is wrong with gun culture in America. Do we really need to bring them to work with us?

Turns out that you're totally wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees.

As long as there's no foolproof way of preventing the bad guys from getting one to where I am, I want the option of lethal force in self defense as a last resort.

I have a dilemma since I work at a University. I first want to make it clear that I do not carry a weapon or anything that can be construed as a weapon to work because I'm prohibited by school policy and state law.

Schools have consistently been targets of spree shooters because they present a high target density and low chance of being confronted with armed resistance. Additionally, there have been over 40 gang-related shootings or stabbings within one mile of work and the walk to the train station in the past year, with significant gang activity within line-of-sight of that walk.

Several times in the past year, I have encountered individuals or groups of individuals who were clearly up to no good and clearly armed; fortunately, I was alert, aware of my surroundings, and able to quickly plan what I would do if things went bad, and nothing ever happened. Violent crime has a fairly low event occurrence, but as sample size of encounters with people likely to perpetrate violent crime increases, the chance of being a victim of violent crime increases.


Finally, it's not just bringing guns to work it's having one everywhere between work and home.