2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,581
- 2,290
I tailor my arguments to the person I am debating. The deeper end of the pool is not a place that I get to swim in that often, not because I can't swim there, but because most anti-gunners can't keep from drowning in knee-deep water.
I thank you for this post, I enjoyed reading it; I like when quotes from original sources are presented and then directed, "this is what I think this means and why I think my position is supported by it" analysis is given. It is what I try to do, what I like to see.
It's not like anything we say here is really determinative, all we are doing is presenting our most persuasive interpretation and opinion about words, facts and especially statements by SCOTUS and other sources that we both are working from. This debate is about those interpretations. Thank you again and I appreciate the time you spent writing it.
In my reply I'm going to break down your post and post multiple replies and I might combine similar points you made and address them together in one post, just to keep those ideas together. I hope I don't come across as altering or misrepresenting them or your position, if you think I do, please make a note of it.
Correct. The 2nd Amendment has a purpose, a singular intent, and that was to perpetuate the general militia principle. US v Miller speaks to this directly, telling us the "obvious purpose" of the "declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment" was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of militia forces. The 2nd Amendment did that by rendering immune from federal government infringement, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the means by which the people can fulfill their duty if called.
You are correct too that there is no mention of particular recreational or personal uses of arms in the 2ndA. That's because there was never any question that the right to possess and use arms to hunt and defend oneself, along with a myriad of other lawful uses, was considered a birthright of every citizen. That right was possessed by the citizen without any recognition or permission from government. The right wasn't given or granted and was not a product of the benevolence of the magistrate.
As an aside, there's no nota bene for types or topics of speech or writing that are protected under the 1st Amendment. There is no a mention of adventure novels or texts on the sciences but nobody would argue the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the right to converse or write or publish upon those topics.
The aspects of those activities that people demanded be secure and protected from government in the 1st and 2nd Amendment, were the political aspects. By protecting the means and actions that could question or even oppose the political power structure meant that political structure was powerless to injure the right to read romance novels or hunt or justifiably defend yourself.
Holding government impotent to impact undefined speech, press and arms, of course automatically protects ancillary, unrelated and nonpolitical means and actions; a federal government held powerless can't claim a power to restrict citizens in any of those affairs.
.
Again….another excellent set of posts……..thank you.