CDZ Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

[there4eyeM]

The thinking was, quite evidently, quite different in the late eighteenth century.

 

[Pogo]

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

To me it is saying that since we need armed citizens to form our militias, citizens should be allowed to bear arms
Take away that right and your ability to form militias is gone

Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is not.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

Zackly --- and "a well regulated Militia" is hardly the only paradigm under which Arms can be used ---- although hunting shotguns weren't invented yet, nor was the revolver, nor was the Minié Ball; even simple dueling pistols were just then getting standardized ---- so their concept of "Arms" would have been a fraction of, and infinitely more limited than, ours is. It stretches credulity beyond belief to imagine that they would have meant to include all of the future technologies up to and including shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and land mines and nuclear bombs etc.

So it's reasonable to note that at the time the 2A was written the use of "Arms" was limited to (a) war, its original purpose, (b) a well regulated Militia or (c) dueling to settle a personal score. The idea of a sniper sitting on the top of the local grain mill picking off random strangers ---- simply did not exist, as the technology to do that didn't exist.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ultimately, law abiding citizens should be able to expect peace, so that carrying weapons would not be thought useful even to the most rigorous standards.

 

[Pogo]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

There is a mention of bearing arms for the country

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Yes, only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; even organized confederates, did not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, and were disArmed, as a result. disarming the unorganized militia is routine, through gun control laws.

The right is for the people not the militia
there can be no militia without the people therefore the militia is secondary to the people
It is the people's right to keep and bear arms

the People are the Militia; what part of that do you not get?

It's you who doesn't understand it not me

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The PEOPLE need to be armed in order to form a militia

OK fair enough, that's logical. It works.

Does it not also mean however that the right to bear arms outside of the use within a Militia ---- can indeed be infringed, i.e. is not covered under the dictum? Including even hunting, which at the time really didn't involve firearms?

 

[Pogo]

Ultimately, law abiding citizens should be able to expect peace, so that carrying weapons would not be thought useful even to the most rigorous standards.

Hear hear. That's exactly what I said in my first post here, post 7:

Law abiding citizens should be able to carry a gun, open or concealed in any state...

Actually, law abiding citizens should be able to go about their lives without a relentless culture that continually glorifies guns and violence, that's what they should be able to do.

 

[2aguy]

Ultimately, law abiding citizens should be able to expect peace, so that carrying weapons would not be thought useful even to the most rigorous standards.

When you find a way to that alternate reality...let us know.....

 

[Pogo]

and FYI militia is not plural it is singular so once again brush up on your grammar

It can be in British English. cf. "The crowd are expectant"

 

[Pogo]

legal gun owners are subject to State gun control laws.

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

That's entirely possible. Gun control laws can't be expected to reduce crime on their own, since crime does not happen or not happen as a factor of how much gun control there is.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't say "firearms" --- it says "Arms". Nukes are arms. Torpedoes on the submarines are arms.

This of course leads us to the context of what "arms" meant in the 18th century since obviously those technologies did not yet exist, nor did plane bombers or drones, nor did the Minié ball which itself considerably changed the definition of what "arms" could do ----- and the attendant question of whether the Founders, had they had the clairvoyance to anticipate these future technologies, would have second-guessed their wording here, or whether they really did mean that if I can afford one I can have a nuke.

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


See what a language expert says

Thank you. Finally got a chance to look this over, as I never shy away from linguistic analysis.

One passage reads:

>> [Schulman (interviewer):] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud (language expert):] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence." <<​

Clearly he's correct when he says "no such condition is expressed". I made that point all along.
Clearly he's equally wrong when he says "or implied", because the phrase is just sitting there in all its specificity, the elephant in the sentencial room. As I also pointed out from the beginning, the phrase must be there for SOME purpose ---- a purpose which Copperud never does explain ----- until he directly contradicts himself in the very next section:

>> [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia." <<
​

Whelp --- if it is invoked specifically for the sake of the militia ----- that is indeed a condition within the wording of the Amendment. "Specific" is exactly what a condition is.

What he's saying is the right is not declared to be dependent on the existence of the miliitia ---- not that the Amendment precludes the infringement of it outside that circumstance. Subtle difference.

I continue to hold the view that the Amendment as worded is a linguistic train wreck, a view upon which Prof. Copperud offers no opinion, but in fairness to its composers, they may not have elaborated much beyond the concept of "well regulated Militia" on account of there not being a whole lot of other uses for Arms in their time, observing that they could not have anticipated Minié Balls and revolvers and shotguns and aircraft bombers and AK-47s etc etc etc.

 

[danielpalos]

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

To me it is saying that since we need armed citizens to form our militias, citizens should be allowed to bear arms
Take away that right and your ability to form militias is gone

Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is not.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

The People are the Militia. The right wing is merely alleging the "gospel Truth" for political purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

the People are the Militia; what part of that do you not get?

It's you who doesn't understand it not me

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The PEOPLE need to be armed in order to form a militia

Only well regulated militia of the people need to be Armed. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary.

You cannot arm a militia if the people are not armed

The militia is secondary to the people because it cannot exist without the people

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

you are asking for wellness of regulation welfare, you are not willing to work for.

Just because you rewrite the constitution doesn't make your point valid

We are talking about the Bill of Rights which is a collection of amendments that secure the rights of the people

There is no Second Article of Amendment

You are being ridiculous. Of course there is a Second Article of Amendment. No wonder, no one takes the right seriously about economics or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

To me it is saying that since we need armed citizens to form our militias, citizens should be allowed to bear arms
Take away that right and your ability to form militias is gone

Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is not.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

---- which they did. In the first thirteen words.
What they didn't do is unequivocally connect the two. They implied a connection but didn't spell it out.

The question was, and is, why would they drop such an implication in there? It must have some function.

Again, a Constitution has no need to ---and other than this phrase does not --- justify its reasoning. Again, we do not have an Amendment worded, "A well-informed populace being necessary to the function of a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of Speech, or of the Press.... " That phrase isn't necessary and does not exist. In any other Amendment at all.

And yet --- here it is in the Second. Doing..... something. No one knows exactly what.

The whole and entire People are the Militia.

Only, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

The thinking was, quite evidently, quite different in the late eighteenth century.

No, it wasn't. the right merely has a for-profit motive for their appeal to ignorance of the law.

 

[danielpalos]

To me it is saying that since we need armed citizens to form our militias, citizens should be allowed to bear arms
Take away that right and your ability to form militias is gone

Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is not.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

Zackly --- and "a well regulated Militia" is hardly the only paradigm under which Arms can be used ---- although hunting shotguns weren't invented yet, nor was the revolver, nor was the Minié Ball; even simple dueling pistols were just then getting standardized ---- so their concept of "Arms" would have been a fraction of, and infinitely more limited than, ours is. It stretches credulity beyond belief to imagine that they would have meant to include all of the future technologies up to and including shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and land mines and nuclear bombs etc.

So it's reasonable to note that at the time the 2A was written the use of "Arms" was limited to (a) war, its original purpose, (b) a well regulated Militia or (c) dueling to settle a personal score. The idea of a sniper sitting on the top of the local grain mill picking off random strangers ---- simply did not exist, as the technology to do that didn't exist.

nope; the point is, Only well regulated militias of the whole and entire people, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

It does not say the Right of the states to arm and equip a militia shall not be infringed....the Right of the People shall not be infringed....

It certainly implies that it's talking about a militia. Why else would the phrase even exist there at all?
A militia is certainly not the only application in which Arms can be used. Why did they single this one out?

The actual people have the Right to keep and bear arms.....and serve in a militia...twit....

See? You pointed yourself right back to the militia application. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Now --- a Constitution has to be clear; it can't set forth what it sets forth by vague implication. And other than this particular Amendment --- it doesn't. It's specific, as it should be. Then there's this eternally murky area.

It implies that the people have the obligation to form a militia in order to protect the free state and therefore the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It is clearly stated that the people's right (not the miltia's right) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I don't think it's murky at all in fact it is quite clear to me

that says nothing about the militia bearing arms for the country it merely states the necessity of a militia for the security of a free state
the people's right to keep and bear arms is not qualified in fact it is not to be infringed at all

Yes, only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; even organized confederates, did not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, and were disArmed, as a result. disarming the unorganized militia is routine, through gun control laws.

The right is for the people not the militia
there can be no militia without the people therefore the militia is secondary to the people
It is the people's right to keep and bear arms

the People are the Militia; what part of that do you not get?

It's you who doesn't understand it not me

The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The PEOPLE need to be armed in order to form a militia

OK fair enough, that's logical. It works.

Does it not also mean however that the right to bear arms outside of the use within a Militia ---- can indeed be infringed, i.e. is not covered under the dictum? Including even hunting, which at the time really didn't involve firearms?

The People are the Militia. Arms for well regulated militia is socialized, not privatized.

 

[danielpalos]

no fucking shit Sherlock

and legal gun owners are less likely to become criminals not more likely simply because they own guns

gun control laws help ensure the health and safety of the State.

Then why do states with the most gun control have the most crime?

Chicken and the egg

They may have more gun control as a response to more crime

And the gun control has not reduced the crime

That's entirely possible. Gun control laws can't be expected to reduce crime on their own, since crime does not happen or not happen as a factor of how much gun control there is.

yes; there is a direct correlation.

 

[danielpalos]

It doesn't matter what you think it should have said, what matters is what it actually says. If you do not like what it says, go ahead and try to amend the constitution.

The clause says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Everybody with adequate reading comprehension skills understands that the right is not exclusive to people who are members of a militia.

Actually I just *QUOTED* exactly what it says, and raised (again) the question of WHY it says that. And intrinsic to that question is whether or not that is exclusive. A question you completely failed to address and which you're running away from right now.

And no, the clause is the first part. It has no verb. What you quoted is the statement. The qualifier (and/or basis) comes first. And that's the question. If you don't like the qualifier being in there or can't hack it being examined, then YOU go get it changed. But right now it IS in there.

So answer the question --- if you can: If the first thirteen word subordinate clause is not there as a limitation ----- then what is its purpose?

Do we have an Amendment stating "A well-informed Populace being necessary to the Function of a free State, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of Speech, or of the Press" etc?

No we do not. It simply says "Congress shall make no Law...." PERIOD. There's no need to qualify it.

Sorry....plain english.....the Right of the People...to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed....it does not state the Right of a militia to keep and bear arms...you are wrong....again....

Fine -- then answer the question. WHY is the subordinate clause there? WHAT is its function? WHY does it even bring up a "well regulated Militia" if not meant as the specific circumstance under which the right applies?

IOW --- if it is not stating "the right of a Militia to keep and bear arms" ----- then exactly what IS it stating?

Hm?

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


See what a language expert says

Thank you. Finally got a chance to look this over, as I never shy away from linguistic analysis.

One passage reads:

>> [Schulman (interviewer):] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud (language expert):] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence." <<​

Clearly he's correct when he says "no such condition is expressed". I made that point all along.
Clearly he's equally wrong when he says "or implied", because the phrase is just sitting there in all its specificity, the elephant in the sentencial room. As I also pointed out from the beginning, the phrase must be there for SOME purpose ---- a purpose which Copperud never does explain ----- until he directly contradicts himself in the very next section:

>> [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia." <<
​

Whelp --- if it is invoked specifically for the sake of the militia ----- that is indeed a condition within the wording of the Amendment. "Specific" is exactly what a condition is.

What he's saying is the right is not declared to be dependent on the existence of the miliitia ---- not that the Amendment precludes the infringement of it outside that circumstance. Subtle difference.

I continue to hold the view that the Amendment as worded is a linguistic train wreck, a view upon which Prof. Copperud offers no opinion, but in fairness to its composers, they may not have elaborated much beyond the concept of "well regulated Militia" on account of there not being a whole lot of other uses for Arms in their time, observing that they could not have anticipated Minié Balls and revolvers and shotguns and aircraft bombers and AK-47s etc etc etc.

The People are the Militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Well regulated militia are declared necessary; the unorganized militia is not.

 

[Pogo]

Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State. The unorganized militia is not.

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

Zackly --- and "a well regulated Militia" is hardly the only paradigm under which Arms can be used ---- although hunting shotguns weren't invented yet, nor was the revolver, nor was the Minié Ball; even simple dueling pistols were just then getting standardized ---- so their concept of "Arms" would have been a fraction of, and infinitely more limited than, ours is. It stretches credulity beyond belief to imagine that they would have meant to include all of the future technologies up to and including shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and land mines and nuclear bombs etc.

So it's reasonable to note that at the time the 2A was written the use of "Arms" was limited to (a) war, its original purpose, (b) a well regulated Militia or (c) dueling to settle a personal score. The idea of a sniper sitting on the top of the local grain mill picking off random strangers ---- simply did not exist, as the technology to do that didn't exist.

nope; the point is, Only well regulated militias of the whole and entire people, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That seems to be the implication ---- treating the term "the People" as synonymous with "members of the Militia".

The Militia is made of People, but no "the People" are not "the Militia". Unless literally everyone is in the Miliita. (If literally everyone were in the Militia, what would be its point?)

 

[there4eyeM]

As long as adamant firearms fetishists cling to ancient paradigms and rigid interpretation of a document that was intended to live, useful discussion on public weapon possession will remain blocked.

 

[danielpalos]

They are clearly speaking about the need to maintain well organized militias to ensure the security of a free state. A bunch of people running around with guns is not an organized militia

Nope......they wouldn't have stated the right of The People, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.....they would have specified the militia.....

Exactly....If they wanted to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" they could have left it at that
But they chose to tie it to well regulated militias

Zackly --- and "a well regulated Militia" is hardly the only paradigm under which Arms can be used ---- although hunting shotguns weren't invented yet, nor was the revolver, nor was the Minié Ball; even simple dueling pistols were just then getting standardized ---- so their concept of "Arms" would have been a fraction of, and infinitely more limited than, ours is. It stretches credulity beyond belief to imagine that they would have meant to include all of the future technologies up to and including shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles and land mines and nuclear bombs etc.

So it's reasonable to note that at the time the 2A was written the use of "Arms" was limited to (a) war, its original purpose, (b) a well regulated Militia or (c) dueling to settle a personal score. The idea of a sniper sitting on the top of the local grain mill picking off random strangers ---- simply did not exist, as the technology to do that didn't exist.

nope; the point is, Only well regulated militias of the whole and entire people, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That seems to be the implication ---- treating the term "the People" as synonymous with "members of the Militia".

The Militia is made of People, but no "the People" are not "the Militia". Unless literally everyone is in the Miliita. (If literally everyone were in the Militia, what would be its point?)

yes; the people and the militia are synonymous. only well regulated "militia" of the People is declared necessary to the security of a free State.