I really think reading the article link I posted a little bit above would be enlightening for a lot of people. It doesn’t touch on controlling interest for legal decision but it comprehensively covers ground that is currently being rehashed in this thread.
It links to a law review PDF
How exactly did I “bastardize” it? What do you think the term well-regulated militia refers to? What do you think the term security of a free state means? And where in those few words is there any suggestion of securing for the citizenry the ability to engage in armed insurrection against a government they have decided is tyrannical?
You seem to be suggesting the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the arming of an insurrection–ie, an irregular militia. That runs directly counter to a plain reading of the amendment, which is clearly intended to arm a regular militia against enemies of the state (which of course can be foreign or domestic).
Finally, if you wish to continue to insist that the purpose of the 2A was to arm an insurrection against the Federal govt, you face the burden of explaining how it is the same authors who supposedly codified insurrection in the 2A simultaneously made insurrection a crime, in the same document. Seems like an awful lot of cognitive dissonance to overcome.
I’m saying they have a severe chilling effect on discussion of any kind (although we can certainly point to specific actions they have quashed that would seem to have stood a strong chance of helping the gun-violence situation).
Given the scrutiny it has endured, if Kellerman contained Wakefield-like duplicity, I am confident–not certain, but confident–it would have come to light by now.
I don’t necessarily disagree there, I was speaking more in generalities. I have scanned too many badly flawed studies to be as confident as you that any study not retracted is free of fundamental flaws.
Ok, thanks for clarifying. We will probably have to agree to disagree on the 2nd part of this statement, but I understand you better now. I would say the opposite: I don’t think most of the past proposed changes would fix gun violence and I think that most opposition to discussion flows from that place (not believing it will help, and not wanting to curtail a fundamental freedom for something that will not solve the problem)
Ed, you’re completely out in left field here. Every other amendment codified in Bill of RIGHTS is a protection against infringement by the government in some form.
1: The government can’t abridge free speech or the press or peaceful assemble
3: The government can’t quarter a soldier in your home without consent.
4: The government can’t illegally search you.
5: The government can’t hold you for a crime without grand jury indictment.
6. The government has to provide you a speedy trial.
7. The government has to give you the option of a trial by jury for cases in excess of $20
8. The government cannot require excess bail nor fines nor commit cruel and unusual punishment.
But not the second… The 2nd protects the state from the people. Right…
The 2A was written to ensure a FREE state. The idea that the 2A was added so the State is protected is a complete bastardization of the purpose of the 2A.
You seem to be implying that the people don’t have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, which is what the founders did right before they wrote the BOR.
Says the guy that thinks the 2A provides the state protection from the people.
But, whatever, we’ve been down this road 50x before. I’m not really interested in continuing. All we have to do is look at what else the founders wrote for context:
I agree that, in general, the lack of retraction should not be overinterpreted. But in the case of a paper subjected to extreme scrutiny a la Kellerman’s, such interpretations are more justified.
How about technology that prevents anyone other than a gun’s designated owner from firing it? I think that has tremendous potential to cut back on several forms of gun violence.
Indeed. And how many of those other amendments contain a preamble? (Not a rhetorical question–I would like you to answer it.)
It is as if you are intentionally ignoring the 2A’s preamble.
If such a right exists, it is not explicated in the Constitution. And to make matters worse (for you), the Constitution is at pains to specifically and explicitly criminalize attempting to overthrow the govt. (As I pointed out earlier, this is one of the very few criminal statutes to be found in the Constitution.)
I’m afraid that, between the 2A’s preamble and the Constitution’s criminalization of treason, you don’t have a leg to stand on here.
There is a lot more on this than I am educated to speak on, but some would say that there is a difference between sedition, treason, and justified rebellion.
I know, I know, its the wiki version…
Given the Constitution’s stance on treason, and the 2A’s preamble: If someone wants to try and thread that needle, I’m all ears.
The idea that Madison and Jefferson intended for the 2A to protect the State from The People has got to be the silliest interpretation of the 2A I’ve ever heard/read.
And yet, they were at pains to spell it out, in plain English–“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE…”
Edit: Do you have a count yet on the number of other Amendments that contain a preamble? By my count, the answer is none. If I’m correct, it suggests to me the Framers must have considered the content of the 2A’s preamble really important to understanding the intent of the amendment.
The difference is often in the eye of the beholder.
The Founding Fathers were influenced by the English Parliamentary tradition and the Long Parliament’s resistance to the “tyranny” of Charles I. What else were these proud Englishmen to do but to replicate the deeds of their forefathers and break free from the tyrannical king?
Also, the Spanish rule in Mexico and New Spain at the beginning of the 1800s was challenged by resistance fighters claiming to fight for the baby king Fernando and against the Spanish government imposed by Napoleon, just to name two examples.
In other words, one man’s traitor is another man’s noble revolutionary, the difference is PR.
Indeed. Which is why it would be impossible to intentionally establish a system of government that includes armed revolution as a legitimate means of governance (change of governance, to be exact).
Yeah, or who wins. History is written by the victorious, right?
You didn’t read that link, did you?
(sorry, I have to drop out. the battery in my tablet is dying.)
"…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. There’s no preamble. It’s one sentence…
Yes, the militia being made of The People is necessary to the security of a free state.
You’re not dragging me any further into this, lol…
Nope. Like I said, if someone wants to make the argument, I’m ready to listen.
Are you trolling now? (Serious question.)
I don’t know what else to say. I’ve been in or follow ptobably 100 of these discussions and no one has ever tried to argue the Bill of Rights includes an amendment that protects the State from the People.
I donno start with Federalist no. 46 and go from there I guess… Or don’t, whatever.
OK. While we’re on the subject, has anyone ever tried to say the 2A doesn’t have a preamble?
I’ve never heard someone try to argue that it does…
I guess, I’ve certainly never heard or seen it phrased that way.
