I see what you’re saying, but I’m merely using the analogy to show intepretation of how a prefatory clause adds actual, substantive context to the operative clause - not going out of my way to mirror the 2A language. But let’s take your language - using common sense, do you think that the truer meaning is you have a right to wear hardhats anywhere, anytime? Or that individuals can wear them at jobsite?
The language isn’t a model of clarity, everyone agrees - but the above example demonstrates the impact of the prefatory clause. It shows the “right” in context, and only someone motivated by something other than common sense would be proclaiming “this says I have the right to wear a hardhat anywhere and anytime I damn well please!!”. I mean, that’s just not reasonable.
I’ve found that whenever pro gun people make analogies they make really bad ones. The worst is the spoon one. Holy shit it boggles the mind that they can’t see how illogical that one is without help.
You know, you don’t have to tell me you have suspicions about my beliefs but can actually just tell me what they are. And no, I am not him and have been a poster here for a few years now.
Anyway, I seriously doubt you know what I believe.
What is culture? If it is a set of values and social norms then what people refer to as inner city culture is not culture as it is the opposite of values and social norms. Do you think people in the inner city think that murder is socially acceptable? Or that it is virtuous behavior or has some value? No, it is the murderers who believe it is acceptable behavior because they are murderers. The same with teen mothers. It is not seen as normal but is seen as common. They are not the same thing. Why do those who engage in bad behavior get to define what is culturally acceptable?
You seem to assume that the ‘values and social norms’ that comprise a culture must have a positive moral valence to qualify. I think that is an incorrect assumption. Inner-city values and norms are what they are; likewise, inner-city culture is what it is.
No more than do people elsewhere (murder is not confined to inner cities).
The word norm is much closer in meaning to the word common than it is to normal. In essence, a norm refers to the way things are, whereas normal refers to the way they should be. In certain inner cities, gang violence is not normal, but it is the norm. In certain (often white and rural) communities, opioid/heroin dependence is not normal, but it is the norm.
Okay, that still doesn’t really make sense, but I’ll just let it go.
We don’t call it federalism, but many companies operate in a decentralized fashion that is very similar. Similiar enough that I think the analogy is apt. Our profit centers have an incredible amount of sovereignty but are required to abide by certain corporate policy’s/procedures. It’s very similar.
It’s difficult for me personally for at least three reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
The 2A says “…the right of the people”. Not “…the right of the states”. Words matter, right? Even if your contention is the people have a right to arms specifically for state militia service because that is necessary to the security of a free *State that still means, imo, that the people need arms to achieve that. Again, why would the founders allow the states to effectively make the 2A null if it’s purpose is the security of a Free State? It isn’t logical that they would.
Honestly, I don’t even see the point of adding the 2A if it isn’t an individual right. Wouldn’t the 10th amendment cover it?
We have a lot of source documents we can point to that suggest the 2A is an individual right. Federalist 46 is a prime example of this.
One of the common themes of the era was individual liberty so it’s really hard for me to believe the founders didn’t intend for the BOR to establish individual rights that supersede any government, not just the federal government.
There are other reasons too.
The English Right of Self-Defense.
Madison’s earlier draft of the 2A “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
*Is there a source document on what Madison meant by State? Meaning, was he referring to the individual states of the United States or was he referring to the security of the United States? Often in a geopolitical discussion, a country is referred to as a state and I find this angle particularly interesting considering he capitalized the word. I’ve never looked into it, though.
If a State can’t decide how to defend itself, how free can it be?
I think the Second Amendment certainly spoke of an individual right(I don’t believe it was written so that only active militia members could not be prohibited by the federal government from keeping and bearing arms), but only limited the federal government.
The alternative that people are trying suggest makes less sense to me. Why would the FFs feel the need to specifically state that the militia should be armed. The alternative would be what; we send our militia to a gun fight with knives?
How can you possibly start a paragraph with “the language isn’t the model of clarity” and the proclaim that anyone that doesn’t read it your way isn’t reasonable?
That makes no sense.
and
It’s pretty clear that individuals have the right to wear hardhats.
Let’s try this one:
A well read electorate, being necessary for the evolution of the state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
So in your mind, people can only “keep” (which you ignored in your example as well) books if they vote?
A free market place of ideas, being necessary for the truth, the right of the people to think and say their ideas shall not be infringed.
Who can have ideas?
A well balanced meal, being necessary for proper nutrition, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Where do I sign up for the bread lines?
I can see how understanding what an inanimate object is would be difficult for you.
I’m a little of both actually lol. I will watch.
Any reasonable person also understands that land is a finite resource, and “wealth” is not. Therefore it is an incredibly dumb comparison. I’d be embarrassed if I thought that said anything other than the person who made it is dumb.
That’s because the FF’s didn’t feel the need to enumerate the right to be in an army, or that the army needed to be armed. That would make them morons, and double morons that they would put said right at number 2…
And again, I’m pretty sure they were very clear on their feelings re: individual ownership of weapons. ooohhh forgot the emotive language, WEAPONS OF WAR!!!
I mean, what the fuck?! Barrow to Juneau is the same distance as flying from New York to Orlanda, or from Montana to Arkansas? That’s a big fuckin’ piece of land.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:634, topic:234562”]
How to defend themselves against who, the people?[/quote]
Yes, if those people rebelled. But, more likely, Indian tribes and foreign nations.
They were free to move out of the state and return to visit. The Constitution didn’t govern States; that’s why they had their own constitutions.
In case it’s not clear: I believe the Second Amendment absolutely enumerated an individual right; however, the States were not limited by the Amendments.
There is a difference between “bigger group of people” and “biggest group of people”. The FF’s did NOT limit the second clause to any size group of people, but rather all the people. Your example DID limit the group of people to a “bigger” group, but NOT the biggest.
Maybe I’m not being clear, but unless my rampant typos make reading my posts impossible, I have a really hard time believe you don’t understand this nuance.
Seems to me like you are also making assumptions about meaning, and approaching the issue from that point of view, which you called me out for earlier.
