dksuddeth

to counter the initial 'unclear phrasing', the 2nd amendment went through several drafts, was debated and voted on by all 13 states, and finally ratified after all of that. Did every single individual who debated and voted on it think it unclear? not only doubtful, but i'd say absolutely not.

the only reason that will and i argue about this all the time is the desire for certain elements of society who feel that the 'people' can no longer be trusted, therefore should be disarmed and be subservient to a government that they think grants them rights, instead of believing that the people should be trusted to ensure their liberty.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

"A well regulated militia" clearly excludes the definition you bolded.
I'm silly, but by extension so are those who wrote the words I am clarifying.
They wrote the amendment in a sentence structure taken from Latin instead of English. That means, according to the language the Constitution and BOR were written in, the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

dksuddeth

not when you realize that when they ratified it, well regulated meant well trained and maintained. not government run and ruled.

would that not mean then that the entire constitution and BOR is gramatically incorrect, therefore null and void?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I never said it was government run and ruled at all. Not even close. No, it would have to be separate from the government in order to apply to the wording of the Second Amendment. "Well regulated" and "unorganized" tell two different tales, though. That's perfectly clear.
No, it would mean that one amendment was worded by borrowing sentence structure from a different language.

dksuddeth

clear as mud. I'm not in the national guard or naval militia, yet I'm 'well-regulated'. 6 years of USMC training would have me 'well regulated', would it not?

so everyone who had a hand in crafting that one single 27 word amendment all unaminously decided that this particular amendment should be written using latin sentence structure, instead of english like all the others?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

"A well regulated militia..." The militia is well regulated, not the people.
I'm surprised that someone so well versed in the history of the Second Amendment isn't clear on this. It's even mentioned in the wiki of the Second Amendment, let alone the numerous books and writings by experts on the subject. It borrows some latin sentence structure, which was quite common at the time.
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

dksuddeth

if wiki is to be taken at face value, then this alone should show that the 2nd amendment is not gramatically incorrect, especially if it's used in a majority of state amendments, would it not?

The militia? or the 'people' in the militia?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

MSD

The 2nd says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but it enumerates the right to the people, not any militia.
Better than a headline about a gang member shooting me. Shooting in self defense is a choice between a shitty situation and being dead. It's not something to take lightly, but if it comes down to a decision, I'm going to choose "not dead." Fortunately, if I do end up getting myself into one of those bad situations, I'm statistically likely to end up as one of the 90% or more who draw but don't fire. If I never have to point a gun at something other than a range target or something I'm planning to kill, cook, and eat, I'd be very happy about that.

I'm concerned about a trend that points toward finding myself in a situation where it's better to have a gun than to not have one. It's led to increasing my situational awareness significantly, and I consider myself significantly less likely to end up in a bad situation than before I started paying such close attention. Hopefully that will make any gun I carry unnecessary.

Willravel

I was saying that even wikipedia (a place known for being over-simplistic at best) notes that the sentence structure is latin.
From one of your posts:
The answer is "members of the militia".

The wording of the amendment gives the right to members of the well regulated militia.

dksuddeth

so you mean the 'people', or individuals. right?


again, the people. individuals.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Individuals in the militia. No one outside of said hypothetical militia are guaranteed such a right according to the wording of the Second Amendment.

Martian

I have no interest in debating gun control laws with Americans. So long as you keep it to yourselves, I don't really care what you do with your guns. I will, however, debate logic.

willravel's wikipedia quote highlights an important aspect of this statement, which is that it consists of two separate and distinct thoughts that have been amalgamated. The wikipedia article designates these the justification clause and the operative clause, which is quite serviceable.

The justification clause:

The operative clause:

The justification clause exists to explain why the right is necessary, and does not actually enumerate any legal rights itself. It's actually quite superfluous from a strictly logical standpoint, although that isn't to say that it's useless; understanding the reasoning behind a law allows those who follow it to evaluate it independently, rather than following it blindly or ignoring it. Regardless, we can look at is as more of an appendix, a tangential thought related to the right itself. The operative clause is what defines the legal right...


...and makes no distinction based on membership within a militia, prior history or any other factor. Note that this means that the second amendment is not currently being followed to the letter, as I believe there are laws in place restricting ownership of firearms based on age, mental status of for other reasons that are not mentioned within the original amendment.

Intent is insubstantial and ephemeral. Unless it is explicitly stated, attempting to argue the basis of intent is pointless. I agree with Baraka_Guru that the second amendment as it currently exists is poorly structured, but I disagree with his assertion that it's unclear. It seems perfectly clear to me. According to what I've seen, the real problem people have with the second amendment is that it's unrealistic. It places no restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms, while even the most hardcore gun advocates seem to admit that there do need to be at least some restrictions. No one, for example, advocates maintaining this right for individuals with a history of mental illness, and not very many would advocate maintaining it for ex-convicts.

A more profitable line of inquiry would seem to me to be whether or not the second amendment is still applicable. Can a well regulated militia still be considered necessary to the security of a free state? Indeed, could a well regulated militia still effectively defend that security if necessary?

Not that I expect anybody to seriously consider these questions. It seems to me that both sides of this debate have become too enamoured with their perception and vilification of 'the other side' to really think about any of this in productive terms. Nobody's interested in compromise any more; a grey issue has been polarized into black and white, and neither side is being particularly realistic about it. In all fairness, it's been my experience that this is nearly inevitable when discussing controversial issues with large populations.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

dksuddeth

right of the people, not right of the militia. simple wording.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

It's not simple. I've already addressed this:
"A well regulated Militia" - an organized, armed fighting force
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - not being under government control
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - shall not have their guns taken

Martian: Why would the justification be separated so much from the operative? It seems as if it might as well be an asterisk next to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", instead of it actually being there. But it is there. If people aren't part of the justification (well regulated militia), then how can it apply to them?

Regardless, your question as to relevance directly challenges the very amendment itself. If the justification no longer is applicable, then the operative becomes incorrect.

dc_dux

Here is my take on it:

The "right of the people" is an individual right in the same manner as "the right of the people" in other amendments in the BOR.....(the right of the people to peaceably assemble, the right of the people to be secure in their persons,...)

I think the framers even made that intent clear when they removed the phrase "for the common defense" that was in the original draft of the 2nd amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the common defense)

The issue for me is if that right is absolute. And I dont believe it is. The government can regulate it.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

regulate in which ways? shall not be infringed is pretty definite and clear.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

Infringement is not all that clear.

Is a background check an infringement? Is loss of that right as a result of a criminal record an infringement?

Is a limit on the type of arms an infringement? (I tihink its reasonable to assume that the framers were thinking muskets...not automatic weapons or RPGs.)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

how are rights contingent?

background check? depends on who sets the 'requirements' to meet eligibility. as far as criminal records goes, I'm torn. Part of me says that if you're a convicted murderer, you lose your rights. Part of me says that if you're released, you've served your debt and deserve your rights back. That same part of me says that convicted murderers should never get out of prison.

the framers were thinking to keep the people as equally armed as the standing military, as evidenced by several framers statements about the fear of standing armies.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

If I recall the Federalist Papers (I dont remember which one), the issue of the rights of the people were to protect the people from an oppressive government AND to protect one segment of the people from excesses of another (primarily to protect the rights of the minority from excesses of the majority)

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

Well while it's fun to pretend that rights are "inalienable", that's a fantasy. The only right that's inalienable is the right you can successfully defend.

As for contingent, that's simple. I'll address this in two ways:
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. If it's not necessary for the security of a free state, then the whole thing falls apart (as Martian basically pointed out). The justification justifies the operative. Without the justification, the operative becomes meaningless.
2) Rights in the BOR all have limits. Shouting fire in a crowded room, religious ritual killings, and fines for printing libel are all limits on freedoms of speech, religion, and press. They're all legal, too.

dc_dux

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

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dksuddeth

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Martian

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.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

dc_dux

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?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

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?

Martian

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.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

dksuddeth

what he said.

read my other post a few above.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_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."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

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?
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.

Martian

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 wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

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.

Martian

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.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

No worries.

Derwood

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

MSD

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.

Willravel

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

highthief

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

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

dksuddeth

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

highthief

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?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Jinn

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

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel