A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free stateSeriously, why not say something in the second part of a sentence that has absolutely no relation to the first part. Non-sequiturs make perfect sense.
Also, it has nothing to do with Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. You know the part that give congress the power:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;Yes, even though when you go back and read the original founders quotes in their entirety that show this was a concern and they even quote that passage, the fact that congress has the power to arm the militia has no relation to the Second Amendment.
Nope. the concepts of civilian control over the military establishment and conflicts between militias and professional, standing armies in 17th, 18th, and 19th Century political thought are well documented, that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
And the concept that more guns means less crime is really persuasive as well.
I mean look at all those defensive gun uses.
Yep, I've changed my tune. The pro-gun arguments make a hell of a lot of sense.
Laci, why can't you understand that the militia was seen as the reason the amendment was necessary, but the right was seen as belonging to the people?
ReplyDeleteEither he can but won't admit it, or he has been in denial for so long that he has come to believe his lie.
DeleteIf militias were the reason and militias no longer hold a spot in our defense, then the reason no longer exist and neither should the right.
DeleteThe two are intertwined. The right should be rewritten, so it is a stand by itself right, not linked to the necessity of a militia.
The clauses are interrelated, but not in the way you suggest, Anonymous.
DeleteThen in which way (you don't say) are they related?
DeleteAs has been explained before, the first clause, the dependent one, gives a reason for the protection of the right. It does not limit the right--and nothing in it indicates that it is only reason for the right.
DeleteIt defines the reason for the right, which is why it has to rewritten as a stand by itself right. Otherwise, someday when liberals have majority on the court, they could easily find the right voided because militias no longer pertain.
DeleteAgain, it gives a reason for the right, not the only one, and a court would be abusing the language and meaning of the law to strike it as you suggest they might. As for the idea of passing a new amendment without that first bit of language, it's naive to think that lawyers and judges opposed to gun rights wouldn't find some other way to abuse language and precedent and still define the new amendment out of relevance.
DeleteA Constitution is only protection as long as people respect it and abide by it. Totalitarians talk a good game about freedom most of the time, they just don't abide by it. The Inquisition claimed to be lead by the Scriptures while they shat all over them.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteEnjoy this day on which we celebrate You, and all those who are persuaded by your badly constructed arguments, twisting of history and the meaning of texts, and logical fallacies!
Lets see, we start with Plessy vs Ferguson, move on to Brown vs Board of Education and we end segregation. Then we move from United States vs Miller to District of Columbia vs Heller and move from a collective right to an individual one.
ReplyDeleteAnd from that decision are coming additional decisions regarding bearing arms outside the home based on Heller. I'm glad to see that you're seeing the truth Laci, that we seem to be moving towards more individual freedom.
"I've seen the error of my ways!"
ReplyDeleteToo bad it only works for one day.
Remember, Laci cannot point to a single state that has taken away the right to concealed carry once they allowed it by law.....
ReplyDelete