The contention in this discussion was whether the 2nd Amendment refers more to militia's and not necessarily the right of an individual to bear arms.
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.
It's clear in explicit writing that an individual has the right to bear arms.
This is because the idea of keeping a state 'free' encompasses both fighting external and internal threats.
To put it another way, if it meant a militia and not an individual being able to bear arms themselves, then your essentially saying The Federal Government or State Government hands out weapons to the people by circumstance against a threat.
This obviously doesn't work If it is the Government that needs to be fought against. or if the military and Government themselves are compromised.
The entire idea of the 2nd Amendment was to keep open an avenue of last resort for the people if all else fails, that they could correct a dire situation themselves.
When you understand American history, it becomes even more clear, because if the American people themselves did not have arms, they could not fight against the English as the English was the official Government over the American Colony, in this case the legitimate Government was kicked out.
The reason why Gun's shouldn't be removed, is because it goes against the very ideal of the Western Republic.
The Constitution largely is a document meant to Restrict the Government against the People, the Founding Fathers of America specifically chose and created a system in which its explicit purpose is to restrict Government.
The entire progress of Western Civilization in Governance is the idea of restricting powers, this was a revolutionary thought that does not exist in prior forms of Theocracy, Monarchy or Democracy.
The Republic is strongly based on Freedom, The Founding Fathers considered the Powers to be always eventually oppressing the people, therefore in practice a Republic restricts the Powers (Government historically) and does not seek means to itself, but is supposed to protect rights.
The 2nd Amendment therefore is, for now, considered the highest practice of this, the Government must allow the people the capability to even overthrow the Government.
If you want to get rid of Guns, thats fine, but that is not in line with the modern Western Republic, your probably more inclined to Socialism or Communism (ie. The Government solves all problems fort he people) not coincidentally, Communism always did this.
The 2nd Amendment therefore is, for now, considered the highest practice of this, the Government must allow the people the capability to even overthrow the Government.
If you want to get rid of Guns, thats fine, but that is not in line with the modern Western Republic, your probably more inclined to Socialism or Communism (ie. The Government solves all problems fort he people) not coincidentally, Communism always did this.
Do you contest the notion that the government has you outgunned at least one trillion to one? How do you expect to overthrow an oppressive government using force?
Who are the people? What are arms? What form should regulation of the militia take?
These things don't seem clear to me. They are subject to reinterpretation by every generation. Culturally American distrust of the executive means that for now x number of suicides, school shootings etc. are a price worth paying. We'll see what people think in 50 years...
Do you contest the notion that the government has you outgunned at least one trillion to one? How do you expect to overthrow an oppressive government using force?
The English had the Americans out-gunned too.
So if your relying on 'but what works' well History shows it worked, and in particular its relevant to America because it is American history.
Who are the people? What are arms? What form should regulation of the militia take?
These things don't seem clear to me. They are subject to reinterpretation by every generation. Culturally American distrust of the executive means that for now x number of suicides, school shootings etc. are a price worth paying. We'll see what people think in 50 years...
And if someone kills your family.
You can complain how the laws were 'unclear' to you, and the murderer should get off free.
Or perhaps things are only unclear when you don't agree with it. This form of argumentation doesn't go anywhere.
Your premise was a Government outgunning the populace.
The English outgunned the average American populace in colonial America, and most definitely had weaponry that superseded a simple firearm.
Like actual siege weapons, and a naval power that could blockade and starve off the American colony, and destroyed other nation-states back then.
If you can't accept historical precedent, then don't bother making an argument of circumstance, because real history proving it can be done is more relevant then hypotheticals.
Do you contest the notion that the government has you outgunned at least one trillion to one? How do you expect to overthrow an oppressive government using force?
The English had the Americans out-gunned too.
So if your relying on 'but what works' well History shows it worked, and in particular its relevant to America because it is American history.
Who are the people? What are arms? What form should regulation of the militia take?
These things don't seem clear to me. They are subject to reinterpretation by every generation. Culturally American distrust of the executive means that for now x number of suicides, school shootings etc. are a price worth paying. We'll see what people think in 50 years...
And if someone kills your family.
You can complain how the laws were 'unclear' to you, and the murderer should get off free.
Or perhaps things are only unclear when you don't agree with it. This form of argumentation doesn't go anywhere.
Sorry, I can't understand your point. Laws concerning murder are usually rewritten - for example to reflect advances in medical technology- while the text in question is a constitution. Questions concerning the interpretation of core cultural documents immediately run into hermeneutics. (Just look at how the Japanese constitution has been reinterpreted for example.) And using the example of my family being massacred is... unhelpful on many levels.
Sorry, I can't understand your point. Laws concerning murder are usually rewritten - for example to reflect advances in medical technology- while the text in question is a constitution. Questions concerning the interpretation of core cultural documents immediately run into hermeneutics. (Just look at how the Japanese constitution has been reinterpreted for example.) And using the example of my family being massacred is... unhelpful on many levels.
Then you should apply your own practical application of how to understand things in every day life to the constitution and laws.
For example, how are you interpreting things on your screen in such a manner that you can even have conversation? Does it get re-interpreted every-day? Perhaps your interpretation isn't even correct of what i just wrote.
How did you respond so quickly? Why didn't you take a few weeks to think about it to be clear?
It is not precedent because the military power modern of governments is unprecedented. Siege weapons are not analogous to being able to destroy any militia without any confrontation and without giving them even an indication of their impending doom.
It is not precedent because the military power modern of governments is unprecedented. Siege weapons are not analogous to being able to destroy any militia without any confrontation and without giving them even an indication of their impending doom.
Your argument is arbitrary, the English had a naval-power that shook the world and could destroy nation-states, the American Colony was nothing to that.
But it still succeeded.
The arbitrariness in your argument lies in that you chose an arbitrary level of power to say it is or is not relevant to the argument.
But your argument was 'A Government that outguns the people', and Historical precedent satisfies that.
Furthermore your arguments premise is based on abstractness rather then reality.
An American Government that chooses to use the military against its own people will not survive for long, not even the military is going to stomach killing its own family members and countrymen forever.
With your logic, The American colony should have laid down for the English because how could it even compete against THE Power at the time.
No different then has any criminal killed someone even if the person tried to defend themselves. And i wouldn't advocate taking that right of self-defense away from everyone.
To elaborate on that. Yes, you are correct that my choice of level of power is arbitrary. But so is your choice of precedent. If we want to go down that road, let's analyse all instances of governments vs militias to come to a conclusion.
I don't need to, because the premise of the Republic in America is one of rights and i only need to know if it is possible and has succeeded that it is valid to strive for it.
Moreover there are many other reasons the founding fathers wanted the 2nd Amendment which are still valid today.
I also know from precedent, just from the last few years, that a 1st-world Western Nation can lose the support of their own police to which the populace must defend themselves.
Sorry, I can't understand your point. Laws concerning murder are usually rewritten - for example to reflect advances in medical technology- while the text in question is a constitution. Questions concerning the interpretation of core cultural documents immediately run into hermeneutics. (Just look at how the Japanese constitution has been reinterpreted for example.) And using the example of my family being massacred is... unhelpful on many levels.
Then you should apply your own practical application of how to understand things in every day life to the constitution and laws.
For example, how are you interpreting things on your screen in such a manner that you can even have conversation? Does it get re-interpreted every-day? Perhaps your interpretation isn't even correct of what i just wrote.
How did you respond so quickly? Why didn't you take a few weeks to think about it to be clear?
'Practical understanding' of constitutional documents.... Where can I obtain this rare fish? Does it swim with that narwhal common sense? (Though we all apply relativism / absolutism somewhat haphazardly according to personal need I agree.) If it is the bottom-up product of individual experiences & education then there will be some variation as this thread demonstrates. If top-down as in the example I alluded to of revised legal interpretations of the Japanese constitution (especially article nine) then that's also an example of how constitutions change as a result of social circumstances.
If it's based on emotive rhetorical appeals which involve contemplation of family massacres however... then I think I'll pass.
The hermeneutics of modern day internet communication would seem to be a broader topic, and more appropriately addressed in a different thread.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the American Revolution would have never succeeded without the intervention of the French, who DID have firepower to match the British. A straight up fight without France stretching them thin in other spots on the globe and supplying arms and strategy to the colonies would have been a slaughter. Our Revolution was essentially a proxy war at the time.
Comments
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.
It's clear in explicit writing that an individual has the right to bear arms.
This is because the idea of keeping a state 'free' encompasses both fighting external and internal threats.
To put it another way, if it meant a militia and not an individual being able to bear arms themselves, then your essentially saying The Federal Government or State Government hands out weapons to the people by circumstance against a threat.
This obviously doesn't work If it is the Government that needs to be fought against. or if the military and Government themselves are compromised.
The entire idea of the 2nd Amendment was to keep open an avenue of last resort for the people if all else fails, that they could correct a dire situation themselves.
When you understand American history, it becomes even more clear, because if the American people themselves did not have arms, they could not fight against the English as the English was the official Government over the American Colony, in this case the legitimate Government was kicked out.
The reason why Gun's shouldn't be removed, is because it goes against the very ideal of the Western Republic.
The Constitution largely is a document meant to Restrict the Government against the People, the Founding Fathers of America specifically chose and created a system in which its explicit purpose is to restrict Government.
The entire progress of Western Civilization in Governance is the idea of restricting powers, this was a revolutionary thought that does not exist in prior forms of Theocracy, Monarchy or Democracy.
The Republic is strongly based on Freedom, The Founding Fathers considered the Powers to be always eventually oppressing the people, therefore in practice a Republic restricts the Powers (Government historically) and does not seek means to itself, but is supposed to protect rights.
The 2nd Amendment therefore is, for now, considered the highest practice of this, the Government must allow the people the capability to even overthrow the Government.
If you want to get rid of Guns, thats fine, but that is not in line with the modern Western Republic, your probably more inclined to Socialism or Communism (ie. The Government solves all problems fort he people) not coincidentally, Communism always did this.
These things don't seem clear to me. They are subject to reinterpretation by every generation. Culturally American distrust of the executive means that for now x number of suicides, school shootings etc. are a price worth paying. We'll see what people think in 50 years...
So if your relying on 'but what works' well History shows it worked, and in particular its relevant to America because it is American history. And if someone kills your family.
You can complain how the laws were 'unclear' to you, and the murderer should get off free.
Or perhaps things are only unclear when you don't agree with it.
This form of argumentation doesn't go anywhere.
The English outgunned the average American populace in colonial America, and most definitely had weaponry that superseded a simple firearm.
Like actual siege weapons, and a naval power that could blockade and starve off the American colony, and destroyed other nation-states back then.
If you can't accept historical precedent, then don't bother making an argument of circumstance, because real history proving it can be done is more relevant then hypotheticals.
For example, how are you interpreting things on your screen in such a manner that you can even have conversation? Does it get re-interpreted every-day? Perhaps your interpretation isn't even correct of what i just wrote.
How did you respond so quickly? Why didn't you take a few weeks to think about it to be clear?
But it still succeeded.
The arbitrariness in your argument lies in that you chose an arbitrary level of power to say it is or is not relevant to the argument.
But your argument was 'A Government that outguns the people', and Historical precedent satisfies that.
Furthermore your arguments premise is based on abstractness rather then reality.
An American Government that chooses to use the military against its own people will not survive for long, not even the military is going to stomach killing its own family members and countrymen forever.
With your logic, The American colony should have laid down for the English because how could it even compete against THE Power at the time.
So it has many historical precedents.
And i wouldn't advocate taking that right of self-defense away from everyone.
Moreover there are many other reasons the founding fathers wanted the 2nd Amendment which are still valid today.
I also know from precedent, just from the last few years, that a 1st-world Western Nation can lose the support of their own police to which the populace must defend themselves.
If it's based on emotive rhetorical appeals which involve contemplation of family massacres however... then I think I'll pass.
The hermeneutics of modern day internet communication would seem to be a broader topic, and more appropriately addressed in a different thread.
It talks about how a well regulated militia is a necessary part of the government, it's not anti-government.