Lingusitics What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Allow Regarding Gun Ownership?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GENIERE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    English Language
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically whether it grants the right to bear arms solely to members of a militia or to all citizens without restrictions. Participants express confusion over the grammatical structure of the amendment, noting that it does not explicitly mention individual self-defense or hunting. Some argue that the historical context of the 18th century makes the amendment obsolete in modern society, while others maintain its relevance as a safeguard against tyranny. The conversation highlights differing views on the necessity and implications of state militias versus individual gun ownership rights. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexity of interpreting the Second Amendment in today's context.
  • #51
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
— James Madison
Indeed. We cannot forget the period they were living in, when guns were neccessary. But we don't happen to be living in that period.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
---1796 George Washington, Farewell Address,
Then let us amend away! There is no such thing as the sanctity of the constitution. That was not intended.

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson
Except our situation is so far different that we do not know what is the probable spirit. The guns may very likely have been intended to defend against natives, or the British - hence security.

Mahatma Ghandi - Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
But history does not. And in this case Ghandi was wrong.

Adolph Hitler - This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future! - April 15, 1935
This is largely irrelevant. Hitler supplanted that by making the majority gun owners members of the SA. Gun registration had little to do with it. Indeed, the proliferation of weapons in the 1930s was part of the reason why Hitler go into power. The violence was politically exploitable.

Josef Stalin - The United States should get rid of its militias. – 1933
Stalin also said that all men should be considered equal. He also said the League of Nations should deal with the threat from German. Judge by the statement, not by the speaker. What Stalin says may be wrong - but not because Stalin said it.

Sarah Brady to Howard Metzenbaum - Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. – 1984
Well duh. But it's not like we are in the middle of an invasion, and we must continue armed resistance. Also - those who would resist us... This does not equate to the people of the nation, but really more to the security forces, army etc.

Adolf Hitler - ... History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. - Edict of 18 March 1939
I assure you the US is hardly about to be conquered.

Samuel Adams - The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
And let us not forget the historical context in which this was written... :wink: And what about the people of the united states, who are not peaceable citizens? And regulation is not ruled out.

George Mason - To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them...
But disarming does not equal enslaving. Rather disarming is a method of enslavement, but enslavement does not necessary follow.

George Washington - The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good
George Washington - Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
"Do not separate text from historical background."

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
"Do not separate text from historical background."
But still regulations are not denied. Only complete banning.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #52
^^^ Damnit, FZ, your rationalism is interfering with my Founding Fathers hero-worship! Tommy Jefferson thought everyone should have a musket to defend his tree of liberty against the blood of patriots... or water it with tyrants... or something like that, but anyways I should get to keep my Mack-10, those are the principles this great nation is built upon!
 
  • #53
Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed. We cannot forget the period they were living in, when guns were neccessary. But we don't happen to be living in that period.
.

Weeeelll, some of us live in areas that still closely resemble the period that they were living in..lol. Where I live, and actually much of the area upstate from there, guns are preeeettty important. Particularly when dealing with wildlife, having no local police and let's not forget the many families who do indeed depend on that deer to get through the winter on.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by kat
Weeeelll, some of us live in areas that still closely resemble the period that they were living in..lol. Where I live, and actually much of the area upstate from there, guns are preeeettty important. Particularly when dealing with wildlife, having no local police and let's not forget the many families who do indeed depend on that deer to get through the winter on.

And, currently, the guns that you would need for those purposes are easy to get. The regulations on shotguns and long rifles is that the government get a heads up, and that the seller knows you aren't a convict. If you go to WalMart to get your oil changed and buy a rifle...your backround check may be done before the car is ready.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Alias
So I have this very important right to wear my family crest?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard(said).

Why would this right to wear my family's crest be so important that it had to be stated in the BOR?

Gimme a break Njorl. It's like a scene from Monty Python. Imagine a scene where the founding fathers are hashing out the Bill of Rights and John Cleese, while acting rather effeminate, shyly suggests from the back of the room, "And the right to wear a dress."

To say that they didn't mean "guns", they meant "a sign on your clothes" is preposterous.

Although I feel the point may have been stated a bit overzealously, I do agree that the right to bear arms must be interpreted as referring to possession of weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose for the amendment is stated within the wording of the amendment itself. And I think we can all agree that the need for a military force to defend the country is not satisfied by insuring citizens the right to accessorize.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by LURCH
Although I feel the point may have been stated a bit overzealously, I do agree that the right to bear arms must be interpreted as referring to possession of weapons. As I mentioned earlier, the purpose for the amendment is stated within the wording of the amendment itself. And I think we can all agree that the need for a military force to defend the country is not satisfied by insuring citizens the right to accessorize.

Personal ownership of guns is no longer required for a defensive military force either...
 
  • #57
This just in, there is an available (Wild) Bear, for the Autograph session, (Could you get him to sign my cheque while your at it) He told me he's in, What?? "Cluck and Pee?" Ohhhh so sorry my fault "Kluane NP", around 'fivish', (Bear 'time', no less) between "that tree" and "the mountain, over there", Ok I'll tell them all of that, yes I know there is still snow on the ground and you want to sleep, and me too I want to be left alone, till it's time, Yes, yes, you can go back to your snooze, or 'that' (I don't need to know about 'that' so please don't tell me!) whatever, have a nice Feed.

So he will be there, if you don't show, I guess we will all simply have to relinquish to the idea that I am actually their lawyer, notwithstanding (that's 'legalese') that they have yet to remit the aforementioned retainer, none the less God willing I will continue to act as such.

Till the next installment, the Ca(u)se for "The right of (Wild) Bear to Vote!" (...by Proxy, me!)


EDIT SP
 
  • #58
BTW GENIERE, all of those people that you quote, did any of them live in a world populated by 6.3 Billion people?, cause that figure does certainly, (my opinion) make a large difference!
 
  • #59
No. They simply provided the foundation for a world capable of having 2,000,000,000 people enjoying life. The rest, not able to protect their rights, have a poor to meager existence. In fairness, it was probably the Brits who started the process hundreds of years earlier.

Regards
 
  • #60
Originally posted by GENIERE
No. They simply provided the foundation for a world capable of having 2,000,000,000 people enjoying life. The rest, not able to protect their rights, have a poor to meager existence. In fairness, it was probably the Brits who started the process hundreds of years earlier.

Regards

Sounds like when they did it, "Everyone in the entire world was "enjoying their lives", as that is a total population number, that doesn't coincide with the reality of those times, either.

Nice thought though!
 
  • #61
GOooooo Figure!

That figure, the 6.3 Billion people, (Never mind that, I had heard of the '5 to 6' point, somewhere in the early 2000'ths, so since the turn of the century we have added the equivalent of the population of the "United States of America", to the entire World) is probably the clearest reasoning for the need of dis-arming the nuclear weapons of the Entire Planet.

It figures like this, simply, there is no longer a place to shoot at, that you would not be killing "millions" of innocent people, "Weapons (of the) Destruction (of) Innocence" (WDI's)

So now it becomes "No-Nuke'm all", as in let's demonstrate, to ourselves, that we are actually intelligent enough to recognize that the use/need of them, well, they are actually needless!
 
  • #62
Oh Yes! one of the Bears in the 'Y'uppers' (pronounced "You purrs") wanted me to remind you all that this is NOT a territorial representation that I make, (as their Lawyer) it is of all of the (Wild) Bear!


I remembered him, as I has slept out in his 'front yard' one night, while traveling across the "Y'uppers", "above the Bridge", the people that I met, later in the morning, asked if I had slept out there that night, told me that I had taken a "risk", cause the place was "Thick with Bears"...never bothered me none, "Blackie" probably didn't smell much more then my tent, as EVERYTHING ELSE was double wrapped in plastic to suppress odors.

(BTW, Blackie {Not his real name, not even in Bear} Says; "HI"!)
 
Back
Top