Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

It's so funny that, despite the fact that I have explained to you several times either either side of the argument to take, for or against Noah Webster, gun advocates lose. This is the reason why I have started just about every reply to you saying that you are correct. And it's so laughable that you lost track and haven't even noticed yet.

 

So now THAT is your argument. Not that the cleric can't belong to the military anymore.

So WHAT? The translation is to English. You don't translate from one language to another without also translating idioms to their correspondent equivalent. Clearly you have had no contact with languages other than English. Not to mention any experience translating from one language to another.

Tolstoy didn't. But the translator most definitely DID write English literature!

You actually believed that translation is literal. If it were, no native English speaker would understand it.

The Spanish expression "hablar sin pelos en la lengua" literally means "to speak with no hairs in tongue" Which would be meaningless to an English speaker. So a good translator would use an equivalent English idiom like "to speak frankly" or similar. In doing so, they have to be creative and use the corresponding idioms available that a native speaker would understand. Thereby demonstrating what those idioms MEAN.

So the translator DOES create literature which expresses the same idea as the original, but akin to that of an English speaker in respect to idiomatic expressions and, therefore, not usually the same.

 

Great! So again you agree with Noah Webster's arguments when he and the federalists opposed (and won the vote) enacting an Amendment to explicitly uphold that right. With whom you also agreed right before you said he was wrong. And that was before you supported his position.... But that was the post before you challenged his position... and around and around it goes....

See how you go back and forth on this? That is a definite sign of somebody who didn't have an argument to begin with.

The problem you have is that EITHER of those position support MY claim. Which is that the 2nd A doesn't address a right to own weapons.

 

I have neither agreed nor disagreed with Noah Webster.

I will however point out that your characterization of Noah Webster's position is not even remotely accurate.

 

That is incorrect. Pointing out that the position that you falsely attribute to Noah Webster is entirely untrue does not support your untrue claims about the Second Amendment.

 

Yes you have! As a matter of fact, you have done BOTH

 

Nope that’s not my argument. It’s your strawman.

The Corpus is supposed to be composed of compositions originally in the English language. That’s the point of having a corpus of early English works. Not translations of Russian or French or Navajo works.

LOL

LOL. No. The translator translated Russian literature into English. It’s still Russian literature. Did you ever take a literature class? Did they teach Tolstoy in English lit?

SMH.

Not the point. The point is you can’t take Russian literature and use it to explain what an English speaker meant in a piece of English literature.

Irrelevant. For example, a translation of Napoleon’s pontification on government in no way demonstrates what Madison was talking about in his writings.

The FACT remains there are MULTIPLE references to bearing arms that have nothing to do with military service in the corpus that your source lied about. I’ve presented TWO cases where BEARING ARMS for SELF DEFENSE specifically are in the Corpus that your source lied about not being there.

Because you do not research a topic, but instead repeat what dishonest sources say without vetting them you end up embarrassing yourself like this. All you are left with is fallacious arguments to defend a demonstrably corrupt source.

 

Hilarious!! A discussion of the 2d Amendment that pontificates on Napoleon, Russian Literature and something called "Corpus". I don't live too far from Corpus (Christi) myself.

 

That is incorrect. I have only commented on the position that you falsely attribute to Noah Webster.

 

Would you go as far as disarming armored car guards?

 

Nobody's going to disarm any legal gun owner here.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

Happy to hear that you changed your mind.

No! Not if you are trying to exclude translations. It's EVERYTHING in the English language. Every single document. Including translations. Translations are no less English than ANY other document written in this language. If they weren't, an English speaker wouldn't understand them.

However, I did learn something today. I guess I have had so little interaction with people who are not fluent in more than one language that it hadn't occurred to me that those who don't, and have had zero experience translating, wouldn't grasp the fact that when you translate a document, you are actually creating a new document in your own language. Anybody who has ever adequately translated even so much as a road sign in a foreign language would understand this intrinsically. What I learned is that there is no way to convey this to somebody who hasn't.

 

LOL. Can’t change my mind. That was just your strawman argument.

SMH. Anyone with above a grade school education understands that translating Russian or French literature into English doesn’t make it English literature.

I learned your claims of higher education must be exaggerated.

And the fact remains, your source lied about the references to bearing arms in the corpus. And the fact remains you still stand by blatant disinformation to support your argument.

 

If that had been the goal of the OP, then the OP would not have been calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Trying to abolish our rights is not taking those rights into consideration.

The Second Amendment has served America extremely well. It prevents the left from abolishing freedom.

So what?

Swimming pools increase the risk of drowning.

Freedom is worth the risk.

But I would like to see a system set up to allow suicidal people to voluntarily and temporarily hand their guns in for safekeeping.

Nonsense. Existing domestic violence may see the use of a gun if it is available to the domestic combatants. But the presence of a gun does not cause an increase in domestic violence.

Only if you consider justified self defense as a form of violent conflict.

So what? It's not like it matters what kind of weapon a criminal uses. Their crimes are just as bad regardless.

And our freedom would be worth it even if there were an actual difference in the outcome.

 

Letting freedom be outlawed by local units of government is not acceptable.

It never fails that people who oppose civil liberties will always invoke some variation of "sensible" or "reasonable".

There can never be too much power to block legislation that pointlessly hassles people for no reason. Such legislation should always be blocked.

It is not the Second Amendment which gives the NRA the power to block such legislation. It is democracy itself which gives the NRA this power.

The only thing that Justice Scalia got wrong was to not say that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Notice that your source agrees with me?

Note that militiamen count as individuals.

 

. Maybe because your "explanations" are spurious, distorted, relevance-deprived nonsense. I haven't lost track of anything related to your desperate attempt to spin facts into unrecognizable nonsense. Word games instead of historical relevance is not a strong tactic.

 

I know of one reputable private organization that offers such services.

https://www.holdmyguns.org/

 

@Golem, so far this is my favorite non military reference to bearing arms in the corpus.


“At Megoris a wild Olive Tree stood long in the Market - place , to which they had fastned the Arms of a valiant man ; but the bark grew over it , and hid them for many years . That Tree was fatall to the Cities ruine , as the Oracle foretold , when a Tree should bear arms : for it so fell out when the Tree was cut down , spurs and helmets being found within it ,”

The tree was in the market, not the military, and yet bore arms! No mention of any drilling or training engaged in by the tree. No marching to a foreign land to fight for king or country. Concealed carry without a permit by a tree in a market referred to as bearing arms.

 

It never fails that people who oppose sensible and reasonable regulation within constitutional constraints of rights equate this with being opposed to civil liberties.

You see, the qualifier is 'regulation within constitutional constraints'. So, the regulation is upheld by SCOTUS as being constitutional, you can't claim
those who support such regulation as being opposed to civil liberties as long as the regulation is upheld by SCOTUS, and thus you have made a false argument.

Then you oppose the recent Florida legislation that disallows Drag performance artists from performing their art within 1000 feet of schools, where there is zero evidence that such performance art harms children. Correct?

Democracy brought us the President who appointed Scalia who ruled in heller that rights are not absolute.

Democracy elected NY AG Letitia James who is suing the NRA for financial improprieties and corruption.

Democracy doesn't always result in things you like, that's the nature of democracy.

You are entitled to that opinion, but that opinion is not fact.

You seem to think 'civil liberty' equals 'unregulated liberty'. This is a false argument.

It is not a 'freedom' issue. It is a public safety issue. Those who favor sensible regulation are also pro civil liberties.

All rights are not absolute, they are subject to regulation within constitutional constraints.

What are those constraints?

Those are court cases which limit constitutional rights, the parameters of which will vary depending on the "judicial philosophy' of the court.

Heller is now the precedent, so you must live with it. The courts disagree with you.

 

No, your contention is not even logical. Let me restate what you are responding to:

Note that the OP emphasized that the goal is not to take away people's guns, but rather to address the issue of gun violence in society. The OP argued that while the 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, it is possible to regulate firearms in a way that promotes public safety without infringing on individual rights.

The reason you are incorrect is that the right to own guns, if second amendment were repealed, would be set and/or regulated by the states.

Repealing the second amendment does not ban guns just as repealing Roe didn't ban abortion.

However, repealing Roe left it up to the states, and some states are trying to ban abortion. Since there is no Court ruling to stop congress, nor can their be since the Constitution doesn't specifically address abortion,congress could legislate that abortion cannot be banned.

Does that mean some states would ban guns altogether? Not if SCOTUS upheld it as a right by penumbra under the fourth and ninth amendment, which it would most certainly would do, if the second amendment were repealed. That would disallow states from banning guns, but it would give them more freedom to regulate without vexatious gun zealot lawsuits which are fueled by the second amendment.

So to reiterate, arms would also be seen as a right by penumbra reasoning under the 9th amendment, though rights 'to the people' often require a Scotus ruling to guarantee it.

The only rationale for repealing the second amendment would be to take the wind out the sails of zealots like you. You will still be allowed to own guns, but if you live in a state like California, it would be regulated in ways you don't like, and frankly, I don't give a damn. Move to Texas or something. I say allow states to do as they please, within constitutional constraints, and repealing the second amendment would take the wind out of the sails of vexatious litigation.

That people like you think citizens have the right to own military weapons of mass destruction demonstrates to me that we need to seriously consider a repeal of the second amendment.

Note that America is gradually moving more leftward, and I predict that in 30 years, the second amendment will be repealed.

 

No absolutely no. Reason Brazil.

 

The supreme court' current interpretation of the second amendment is correct. Its never been a collective right.

 

That's not quite right.

The issue of whether the Second Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees an individual's right to bear arms has been a subject of debate for many years. However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time, leading to different views on the matter.

Before the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, many lower courts had held that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual's right to own firearms. Instead, they held that the Second Amendment protected only the right of states to maintain a well-regulated militia. For example, in United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment did not protect the right to possess a sawed-off shotgun, which was not a weapon commonly used by militias.

However, some legal scholars and gun rights advocates argue that the Supreme Court has always recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

So, while some argue that the Supreme Court has always recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the prevailing view before the Heller ruling was that the Second Amendment protected only the right of states to maintain a well-regulated militia. The Heller ruling marked a significant shift in the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, recognizing for the first time an individual right to bear arms for self-defense.

The point is, if what you claim is true, there would have been no need for Heller and Washington DC could never have banned hand guns. Therefore, I don't see the evidence for your position.

 

The idea that the 2nd amendment is a collective right is absurd on several grounds. First the entire Bill of rights first 10 amendments were clearly written as protections from federal overreach. For example, Nobody interprets the 1st amendment as only applying to news outlets. In order for your argument to be true the entirety of the Bill of rights would have to be a collective right held by the government. Nowhere in the document is such a claim made. The only other alternative is that while listing out 9 rights that the federal government could not infringe on, they through in a collective right that only the federal government has a right to? This is an absurd and illogical notion.

Secondly The grammatic structure of the second amendment is such that the subject of the statement is People and the verb is shall. A grammatically similar sentence would be "A Well schooled electorate, Being necessary to a free state, the Right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed" Clearly no such requirement to be well educated is required to be able to keep and read books in that sentence. The present participle is simply explaining why the "People" have the right to keep and read books" Same goes with the Second amendment. The Militia clause is just that, a justification for why the "people" shall not be prevent from keeping and using firearms. Its not a limitation on that right or infers that right to the government. That is illogical, It would defeat the entire purpose of the bill of rights.

Third, there is examples within the bill of rights of the word usage People.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There can be no doubt that the second amendment was an Individual right. The 10th amendment marks a clear delineation between "state" and "people".

logically it follows that the entirety of the Bill of rights was designed to protect individual liberties from a federal governments infringement. More to the point the entirety of the Bill of rights is a LIMITATION on the federal government. It does not grant them boons, It tells them what they may not do in fact.

Ill stop here but there is a litany of historical evidence from Blackstone's commentaries, to Federalist papers, to direct quotes from the signors and those that came after but the simple reality is Americans have enjoyed private gun ownership from its very foundation through the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and that's before we even touch on the legal cases starting with Heller, Mcdonald, Caentano, Bruen, etc which are now killing gun control across the country.

 

There is no such thing as "sensible and reasonable" legislation that stays within constitutional restraints.

"Sensible and reasonable" legislation has the sole purpose of violating constitutional constraints.

We equate "sensible and reasonable" legislation with violations of civil liberties because such violations are the sole purpose of such legislation.

A nonsensical qualifier, given the fact that the sole purpose of such legislation is to violate constitutional constraints.

The Supreme Court has not made any such ruling.

Setting aside the fact that the Supreme Court has not made any such ruling, I most certainly could make such a claim if they did.

If the Supreme Court had made a ruling that was contrary to the Constitution, arguments decrying the resulting civil liberties violations would still be entirely valid.

So, no false argument.

I don't know a thing about it.

That is incorrect. It is a fact that that was the only thing that he got wrong.

I have no such view.

It is very much a freedom issue. People who lack the right to keep and bear arms are not free.

It has nothing to do with public safety. It is only designed to violate people's civil liberties.

Not possible. "Sensible legislation" has the sole purpose of violating people's civil liberties.

The Supreme Court agrees with me.

Other courts will be forced to comply.

That makes me correct and logical, not incorrect and illogical. Letting the states do what they want would mean that the right to keep and bear arms has been abolished.

It does, however, remove the right to keep and bear arms and thereby abolish freedom.

You forgot the Tenth Amendment. The fact that the Constitution did not address abortion means that Congress has no authority to pass laws on the matter.

Not a chance. No one is going to agree to abolish the Second Amendment based on an empty promise that the courts will still uphold the right to keep and bear arms after the Second Amendment has been abolished.

That is incorrect. If the courts continued to uphold the right to keep and bear arms in your hypothetical scenario, the states would continue to be restricted just as they are today.

Like I said, not a chance. No one is going to fall for that.

That is incorrect. The only rationale for removing the right to keep and bear arms is to abolish freedom.

One thing that it definitely will not do is take the wind out of my sails.

The more you try to violate my civil liberties for no reason, the more I oppose all gun control of any sort.

Your disdain for my civil liberties is clear.

No. Your proposal is to remove constitutional restraints.

Only vexatious to those who want to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

I said nothing about weapons of mass destruction.

I said grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

No it isn't.

I predict that America will remain free forever. And that means keeping the Second Amendment forever.

Only in the sense that the left likes to argue against reality.

These lower court extremist rulings have never had any credibility.

That's not quite what they ruled. They said that they did not know of any evidence that it was used by militias, and they sent it back to lower courts where such evidence could have been presented.

More importantly though, they ruled that Miller, as an individual, had the right to have militia weapons.

They are right.

That is incorrect. That has never been a prevailing view. It has only ever been espoused by nutty extremists.

That is incorrect. That right has been recognized for thousands of years.

The point uses very poor logic. The need for Heller is because the left always tries to violate people's civil liberties and the courts needed to rein them in.

You certainly cannot provide any Supreme Court rulings that have ever ruled that the Second Amendment is a collective right.