No American who speaks of any part of our Constitution as archaic and anachronistic deserves to be called rational or sane.
The Second Amendment is as archaic and anachronistic as muskets, slavery, defining slaves as 3/5 of a man, denying women the vote, denying the right to vote to those over 18 but under 21, requiring jury trials in civil suits involving amounts greater than $20, not having the power to tax, prohibiting liquor, and electing the Senate by state legislatures.
In its historical cultural context those things were perfectly rational. And I'm sure you have the 3/5 provision wrong as most people do, preferring to see it as a judgment on the humanity of slaves, but it wasn't. Since they were property they were counted as 3/5 of a person having to do with representation in Congress or something like that. I hope you knew that but I'd bet you didn't. And judging all those other historical facts as irrational just shows your basic ignorance and uninterest in history and cultural context. Another way you are *really* a Leftist.
And I'm sure you have the 3/5 provision wrong as most people do, preferring to see it as a judgment on the humanity of slaves, but it wasn't. Since they were property they were counted as 3/5 of a person having to do with representation in Congress or something like that.
Your complete lack of understanding or humanity still amazes me. in the first statement you say it was not a judgement on their humanity and in the next you acknowledge they were property. I am sure you do not understand the utter depravity of that, but then again you never will. If there were a hell there would be a special place for the self righteous inhuman Christians like you.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Still keeping the focus on factual matters and the topic, my original point was that the 2nd amendment, like other aspects of the constitution, and like the firearms of the day, is archaic and anachronistic today. The 2nd amendment was not written with modern firearms in mind, nor was it interpreted properly by the Supreme Court when they held that the initial clause about a well regulated militia did not modify the clause that followed about the right to keep and bear arms.
This conversation has wandered way off track. It started with my pointing out that Trump did not say anything to approve of white supremacists, which is the usual Leftist fake news lie; he only commented that there are many good people on both sides of the question about preserving versus taking down historical memorials in the South. Of course the Leftists had to make a mess of that too.
Trump was clearly speaking about the Unite the Right protestors, which included White Supremacists and Nazis. Anyone involved on that side was at the least willing to ally with such people. That’s the point of it.
I think I did a pretty good job on *my* interpretation of the Second Amendment on an earlier version of this thread, in Message 57 and I think probably some other posts on that thread as well. I had read up on it before posting there, and here's one paragraph of what I wrote:
"Actually I do know what the founders wanted and it was NOT an organized militia for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment. The concept of an armed citizenry goes back to England and possibly other sources long before the second amendment was written, which built on that history. The point was for individual citizens to have the means of self defense. "
Faith in Message 57 of the Gun Control Again thread writes:
Actually I do know what the founders wanted...
Whether you do or don't, what you say they wanted is not what the 2nd Amendment says.
...and it was NOT an organized militia...
If 2nd Amendment authors were adding an amendment unrelated to "well regulated militias," then why did they mention well regulated militias right up front?
...for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment.
If the 2nd Amendment author's intent was to provide an amendment to protect people from militias, then why do they talk about militias in the context of "the security of a free State", of which the people are citizens.
The concept of an armed citizenry goes back to England and possibly other sources long before the second amendment was written, which built on that history. The point was for individual citizens to have the means of self defense.
The 2nd Amendment authors did not see fit to include the self-defense concept in the amendment. What they did include was the need for a "well regulated militia" to defend "the security of the free State," and well regulated militias, given that governments did not provide firearms at the time, need to draw upon a population of men with firearms.
But regardless of how anyone interprets the 2nd Amendment, clearly it is archaic and anachronistic and doesn't serve the needs of today. Guns are more often used against family, friends and oneself than against criminals, and eliminating guns would reduce the overall firearm death rate.