The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by P@triot, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    42,685
    Thanks Received:
    5,753
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +16,793
    I can give you an expert who disagrees

    Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

    He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

    That sounds like an expert to me. and he says

    The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
     
  2. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,610
    Thanks Received:
    5,563
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +14,621
    Most defenders of the 2nd A. who argue the point you claim is a guarantee and provides an unlimited right so obsessively may not know what a clause represents; thus they read what they want to hear. For some it is willful ignorance, for others a fear of cognitive dissonance and for most simply an echo of what they want to be true. From the link you didn't read, could not understand, or choose (or are incapable of) refuting here is the germane point made in the link I provided.

    Read these sentences:

    “Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”

    “Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”

    In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.

    The meme that every ARM is legal and any attempt to restrict a weapon of war from any citizen violates the Right to bare arms is foolish and only fools, liars and those who benefit from such meme make this claim.

    Scalia chose to baffle us with bullshit when he wrote the majority opinion (5-4) in Heller.
     
  3. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,610
    Thanks Received:
    5,563
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +14,621
    He may be an expert, but he did not (nor have you) posted anything more than what you've argued in the past.
    • Why is the clause "a well regulated Militia" included? If the intent was for all of the people to legally possess all of the weapons of war, why was this clause included?
    • Why would they have needed to mention a, "well regulated Militia", and what do you infer from its inclusion?
     
  4. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    47,214
    Thanks Received:
    14,089
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +30,380

    There is no possible system to prevent a tyrannical government from developing. Anyone who promises you otherwise has very questionable motives or is a complete idiot.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. asaratis
    Offline

    asaratis Uppity Senior Citizen Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,817
    Thanks Received:
    3,187
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Stockbridge
    Ratings:
    +7,229
    Abortion is legalized murder. Gun ownership is not.
     
  6. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    42,685
    Thanks Received:
    5,753
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +16,793
    It was explained in the body of the link

    And it was included not as a qualifier but as merely one reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms was held in high enough importance that it is the second in the list of rights the founders held to be the 10 most important rights.

    No matter how you slice it the right belongs to the people as do all the other rights enumerated in the Bill OF Rights

    Copperrud states the term well regulated to mean "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.



    And There is no need to add any more to the explanation. The only reason you want to add more is to justify removing or limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018
  7. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,610
    Thanks Received:
    5,563
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +14,621
    Your argument is moot. The facts are that some of the Arms of war are legally denied to civilians. You may argue with my use of "legally", but it is correctly proffered since it is a fact in law and equity.

    No rational person believes all arms, that is all weapons used by the military, should be readily available to civilians, criminals, mentally ill or law abiding. Your argument and those of your source, are in direct contradiction of Scalia's rather long justification on the possession of hand guns, for within that 5-4 decision is his comment on the legallty of keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

    Mentally ill persons are difficult to define, even for the psychological establishment. Yet I suspect being irrational maybe the link to describe someone who is mentally ill.
     
  8. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    42,685
    Thanks Received:
    5,753
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +16,793
    Where did I ever argue about ALL military arms? But people can own tanks and jets and other "vehicles of war"

    Please quote me where I did.

    I have never mentioned anything but the firearms civilians have always had access to.

    And there was no mention of the type pf arms in my link.

    We have a procedure in place to determine if a person is mentally incompetent already, anyone who after going through that procedure can be legally declared mentally ill.

    That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm.

    What you seem to nit understand is that the Second only gives the people the right to own and carry firearms and not the right to use them in any illegal manner and if by chance a firearm is used in self defense it is up to the person who discharged the weapon to justify his actions.
     
  9. Slade3200
    Offline

    Slade3200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2016
    Messages:
    15,523
    Thanks Received:
    1,392
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +5,528
    Who is making the argument that Americans shouldn’t be able to own firearms?
     
  10. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,610
    Thanks Received:
    5,563
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +14,621
    Very few Americans believe prohibition of guns in the civilian population is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates; most Americans understand that prohibitions don't work. Most of those obsessed with preventing any form of gun control use the slippery slope argument.

    Stated above, "That said there is absolutely no good reason civilians cannot own and carry a firearm" strikes me as naive, given human nature and the daily cost in blood and treasure guns create.

    The NRA, those who profit from gun sales, and its supporters enable the illegal use of firearms. Since we cannot predict who is and will remain a law abiding citizen, we need to control guns.

    That does not mean I would support the confiscation of the guns already in the public domain, notwithstanding what others may allege. I've detailed my opinion ad nausea, and it includes Licensing and Registration legally established by State Governments when the People support such legislation.
     

Share This Page