Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guys - forget the "militia" discussion. You are wasting your time and bandwidth in this topic. It's a red herring, it's not relevant at all. The "militia" phrase is so misinterpreted in this amendment. Back then the militia was every man of fighting age. But regardless, it simply indicates the "why", not the "what". It's a prefatory clause and has nothing to do with the operative clause which is the true issue - " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.". The prefatory first half is not even discussed anymore in legal debates on gun rights and the amendment interpretation, it's already understood. No one cares. The true debate is below:
Legal experts now focus on the individual vs. collective rights interpretation, which is the last half of the amendment - the operative clause. Is it refering to an individual or the collective body (as "we the people" preamble seems collective). What is "the rights of people" - that's what you should be discussing.
The collective body interpretation means that states can take away that right of gun ownership. However, the supreme court has done that for us - Colombia vs. Heller defined it as an individual right.
I agree with that interpretation. There is no greater proof then the other "Bill of Rights" - the first 10 amendments which are all individual rights. Is freedom of religion only applicable to certain individuals? Is freedom of speech only applicable to certain individuals? The rich? The powerful? Of course not. Likewise the right to bear arms is not limited to certain individuals, but to all (that's not to say it cannot be regulated).
Guys - forget the "militia" discussion. You are wasting your time and bandwidth in this topic. It's a red herring, it's not relevant at all. The "militia" phrase is so misinterpreted in this amendment. Back then the militia was every man of fighting age. But regardless, it simply indicates the "why", not the "what". It's a prefatory clause and has nothing to do with the operative clause which is the true issue - " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.". The prefatory first half is not even discussed anymore in legal debates on gun rights and the amendment interpretation, it's already understood. No one cares. The true debate is below:
Legal experts now focus on the individual vs. collective rights interpretation, which is the last half of the amendment - the operative clause. Is it refering to an individual or the collective body (as "we the people" preamble seems collective). What is "the rights of people" - that's what you should be discussing.
The collective body interpretation means that states can take away that right of gun ownership. However, the supreme court has done that for us - Colombia vs. Heller defined it as an individual right.
I agree with that interpretation. There is no greater proof then the other "Bill of Rights" - the first 10 amendments which are all individual rights. Is freedom of religion only applicable to certain individuals? Is freedom of speech only applicable to certain individuals? The rich? The powerful? Of course not. Likewise the right to bear arms is not limited to certain individuals, but to all (that's not to say it cannot be regulated).
No,The right to "bear arms" just like the right to "free speech" is not absolute. It is qualified and conditional. States may limit who can and cannot own a gun, felons, mentally unstable etc. Some states do not require a license/permit for handguns but do require*for other types. Similarly, if you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't rely on a free speech defense.
Trust your instincts and knowledge. The Federalist Papers do in fact pre-date 10 USC. Nothing in that post implies that statute trumps the U.S. Constitution.
The definition of the militia is provided for current context and meaning, since we are debating the 2nd Amendment as it applies today. Igor Blevin eloquently and thoroughly demonstrated the definition of the militia in the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights.
No,The right to "bear arms" just like the right to "free speech" is not absolute. It is qualified and conditional. States may limit who can and cannot own a gun, felons, mentally unstable etc. Some states do not require a license/permit for handguns but do require*for other types. Similarly, if you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't rely on a free speech defense.
My next sentence clearly states that it's subject to being regulated. You know what "regulated" means right? What's funny is I meant it as a caveat to those that would come in later and say "but Dd714, what about ATF..." and I still get a comment. Man, you only had to read a few more words!
Damn newbies...probably not too late to delete your thread.
Dd714:
I agree with you the "militia" question is not germane to the argument. One poster asked for insight as to the difference between militia and vigilante and I was giving my understanding of the two terms.
Dd714:
I agree with you the "militia" question is not germane to the argument. One poster asked for insight as to the difference between militia and vigilante and I was giving my understanding of the two terms.
Absolutely. I haven't read each response in this thread but I saw that the OP sort of focused on this "militia" term.
My next sentence clearly states that it's subject to being regulated. You know what "regulated" means right? What's funny is I meant it as a caveat to those that would come in later and say "but Dd714, what about ATF..." and I still get a comment. Man, you only had to read a few more words!
Damn newbies...probably not too late to delete your thread.
No, I deliberately left it off.
If you had read all the postings in this thread you would know that earlier the gun advocates were getting their knickers in a knot over the meaning of the word regulated. ATF has had little or nothing to do with this discussion, so far, it has mostly centered on constitutional interpretation and states rights.
Because literacy was not universal, schools demanded a very high standard for literacy from their students. This very formal, almost flowery manner of speaking and writing at the time were simlpy the result of the very high bar set for politicians, orators and journalists of the day. Failure to do so probably made you look inferior or less intelligent to most people, and probably would result in your losing election to someone with superior speaking and writing style.
Because literacy was not universal, schools demanded a very high standard for literacy from their students. This very formal, almost flowery manner of speaking and writing at the time were simlpy the result of the very high bar set for politicians, orators and journalists of the day. Failure to do so probably made you look inferior or less intelligent to most people, and probably would result in your losing election to someone with superior speaking and writing style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottgekko
My how we've lowered our standards....
But raised them on this forum.
I just want to take a moment to thank everyone here for your interesting, informative, literate, and civil contributions to this thread.
I just want to take a moment to thank everyone here for your interesting, informative, literate, and civil contributions to this thread.
I am actually surprised the discussion didn't decay into the typical flame war.
It is refreshing.
It also shows that life is better when you have a civil discussion instead of insults and attacks, which achieve nothing. Every discussion should be like this without people getting too mad or frustrated.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
