Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anti-Debate: Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 18 (584254)
10-01-2010 12:47 AM


quote:
Jon in Message 1:
I think a great strength in any debator is the ability to debate and defend any position well. So, to help everyone practice their debating skills, and to have some light-hearted fun at the same time, I propose we start a series of threads in which we take topics from current threads and debate them in the new threads but from the opposite (or at least different) position from the one we'd normally take.
I propose the first of these debates deal with the issues of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A good starting point will be the OP of one of the earlier threads on the matter:
quote:
Nuggin in Message 1 (from Guns):
Here's the 2nd amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Here's a definition of "arms"
A weapon, especially a firearm
So, from a very literally stand point, any and every firearm imaginable from a .22 to an M2 to a gatling gun should all be perfectly legal in these United States.
But, as we've seen recently, easy access to guns yields massive casualties.
Where do we draw the line?
Did the founding fathers, in the days of muzzle loaders with bad range and worse aim, honestly intend for the events of VT to happen? Remember he got his perfectly legal gun perfectly legally.
I think a good way of summing that up is: based on the 2nd Amendment, what controls are and are not Constitutional on firearm ownership?
Take your opponents' position and do your best to defend it. Forum rules obviously still apply; arguments that are silly or mocking and that do not stand up to examination will fail.
So, let's get started!
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Why do backslashes always show up in my signature in front of my apostrophes; after entering the 'edit' mode and re-submitting, they vanish... strange.

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 18 (584791)
10-04-2010 7:31 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Anti-Debate: Interpreting the 2nd Amendment thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 18 (584867)
10-04-2010 1:28 PM


My Take
According to the writing in the Constitution, the purpose of this right is to allow the existence of a militiaspecifically one that is "well regulated". As the government already has plenty of well-formed and regulated armed military branches, the need for a militia of the people, what would amount to an angry mob of armed nincompoops with no training, is nonexistent.
This amendment allows for the protection of the right to bear specifically to form a militia; in providing a well-trained and regulated militia that is armed and guaranteed to so remain armed, this amendment's purpose has been served. Rights to bear arms beyond that cannot be seen as guaranteed under this amendmentthe militia is already armed, and the militia is the only thing protected under this amendment.
Why anyone would assume this amendment addresses people in general is beyond me.
Jon

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 1:33 PM Jon has replied
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 10-04-2010 2:48 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2010 5:44 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 10-05-2010 6:54 PM Jon has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 18 (584870)
10-04-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
10-04-2010 1:28 PM


Re: My Take
Nonsense.
The militia was formed from an armed populace. Where do you think the weapons for the militia came from?
What other of the amendments do you torture to get just the meaning you prefer?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 1:28 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 1:44 PM Coyote has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 18 (584873)
10-04-2010 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
10-04-2010 1:33 PM


Bring Your Own Gun
The militia was formed from an armed populace. Where do you think the weapons for the militia came from?
That is the past. It appears that the current regulated militias are perfectly equipped to arm their members; I don't think you can argue your right to carry under this amendment on the BYOG policy. Things aren't run like this anymore. In interpreting this amendment, we must make it relevant to our own period, and there is currently no need to arm the people so they have guns when (if) they enter a militia.
The militias' arming being otherwise seen to, how can you argue that it is relevant to arm the people in order to prepare them for their service in the militia?
What other of the amendments do you torture to get just the meaning you prefer?
We'll start with this one .
Jon

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 1:33 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 1:47 PM Jon has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 18 (584875)
10-04-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
10-04-2010 1:44 PM


Re: Bring Your Own Gun
In interpreting this amendment, we must make it relevant to our own period, and there is currently no need to arm the people so they have guns when (if) they enter a militia.
The militias' arming being otherwise seen to, how can you argue that it is relevant to arm the people in order to prepare them for their service in the militia?
So your fear of guns causes you to "reinterpret" the constitution.
If you don't like it, amend it. Otherwise leave it alone.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 1:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 2:07 PM Coyote has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 18 (584879)
10-04-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coyote
10-04-2010 1:47 PM


Re: Bring Your Own Gun
So your fear of guns causes you to "reinterpret" the constitution.
If you don't like it, amend it. Otherwise leave it alone.
Perhaps by providing your own reasoned interpretation, I might be better able to understand why it is you see my interpretation as inaccurate. What aspects of the amendment, in your eyes, clearly establish it as a protection of the people at large to be armed irrespective of the status of the militia?
Jon

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 1:47 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 2:50 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2010 2:51 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 15 by seanfhear, posted 10-05-2010 7:29 PM Jon has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 8 of 18 (584897)
10-04-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
10-04-2010 1:28 PM


Re: My Take
Jon writes:
As the government already has plenty of well-formed and regulated armed military branches, the need for a militia of the people, what would amount to an angry mob of armed nincompoops with no training, is nonexistent.
anti-ringo replies:
It isn't about perceived "need". It's about what the Constitution says. It could be argued that we don't "need" freedom of the press any more because the Internet is almost impossible to suppress. Or it could be argued that we don't "need" freedom of assembly because nobody goes outside any more.
If your position is so sensible, it should be easy enough to change the Consitution to reflect the real needs of society.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 1:28 PM Jon has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 18 (584899)
10-04-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
10-04-2010 2:07 PM


Re: Bring Your Own Gun
Please refer to Heller v. District of Columbia, US Supreme Court, 2008.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 2:07 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Huntard, posted 10-04-2010 3:31 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 18 (584900)
10-04-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
10-04-2010 2:07 PM


Re: Bring Your Own Gun
Perhaps by providing your own reasoned interpretation, I might be better able to understand why it is you see my interpretation as inaccurate.
DC vs. Heller.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 2:07 PM Jon has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 11 of 18 (584913)
10-04-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coyote
10-04-2010 2:50 PM


Re: Bring Your Own Gun
dratnuH writes:
Goddamn activist judges wanting to eliminate my constitutional rights! I hope they never "trespass" on my property, I will shoot them with my newly purchased M60 fully automatic "hunting rifle"!
Yeehaa!
God bless America!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coyote, posted 10-04-2010 2:50 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 12 of 18 (584915)
10-04-2010 3:36 PM


The Evidence For Individual Right
No, the right to own firearms is meant to be an individual right:
Introduction
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.
There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
[i][b]
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
[/i][/b]
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right — Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 18 (585080)
10-05-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
10-04-2010 1:28 PM


Re: My Take
Why anyone would assume this amendment addresses people in general is beyond me.
Because the Militia and the People are contrasted within the verbiage of the 2nd Amendment.
Secondly, if you read the memoirs of the Framers, it's plain as day that they believed ordinary citizens shall be armed.
Thirdly, what sense does it make to have a provision that the says the military can have arms when that's the function of military already, and always has been?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 1:28 PM Jon has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 14 of 18 (585085)
10-05-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
10-04-2010 1:28 PM


Plain as the gun in your face.
We can represent the 2nd Amendment in two parts:
Reasoning behind provision + provision.
It wouldn't matter if the reasoning portion said, "Because purple unicorns are still a problem," because the provision itself clearly reads, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It doesn't say "if this reasoning remains sound" or "until purple unicorns are no longer a problem." There are no provisions for expiration dates in any of the amendments.
The language is plain, like it or not, and the right to bear arms is clearly defined as an individual right in the 2nd Amendment, whether you agree with the reasoning or not.

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio
Real things always push back.
-William James

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 1:28 PM Jon has not replied

  
seanfhear
Junior Member (Idle past 4593 days)
Posts: 23
From: California
Joined: 09-28-2010


Message 15 of 18 (585091)
10-05-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
10-04-2010 2:07 PM


Re: Bring Your Own Gun
Remember that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. These are personal rights of liberty and property. They were meant to limit the power of the federal government. The colonists fighting for their freedom against Britain would surely have demanded a right to keep and bear arms, not because they were afraid of lions, tigers and bears, but because they were afraid of another tyrannical government that could disarm them and remove the last resort of resistance to tyranny.

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."
Voltaire

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 10-04-2010 2:07 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2010 7:34 PM seanfhear has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024