I wouldn't say it's badly worded. The wording was amply discussed in state legislatures as well as by the framers. The meaning was very clear in the mind of any average educated American at the time. Of course, it would have been worded differently today. But that's just because English evolved. In today's English it would have been something like "Because a well regulated militia is necessary.... the right to bear arms as part of a military force..." The distortions in its interpretation are more recent. The 2nd A refers to "a well regulated militia". More details on "well regulated", as it pertains to the federal government are described in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But that would be a topic for another thread. Possibly one that would start with "English 103...". So it most definitely has nothing to do with acting alone. It's archaic to everybody who is not a gun advocate. Even insiders. I don't know of any other developed countries (or underdeveloped, for that matter) where a guy (like the one responsible for the Atlanta massacre two days ago) has a "bad day" (actual wording used by the police), so he goes out to the neighborhood store, buys a gun, and starts killing people. In other countries, worst case scenario he would have kicked the dog, or beat up his wife.... Which is not good, but at least it's less likely that somebody would have died.
Supreme court justices included, apparently. Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
I disagree (BTW, that article you mention is part of my research). We know exactly what they meant. They meant what the words meant in the mind of any typical American with an average education. The Corpora is not linguistic software. It's just a databases that compile everything written around that period. Every document, every book, newspaper article, letters made public,... What the linguists do is look at those databases and extract phrases. Separate those in which the terms "bear arms" are close to each other and separate them according to the context. The few that did not refer to a military scenario required a qualifier. The framers didn't want the people to read their mind. How would the people follow the law if they didn't understand it? They wrote the amendments as clearly as they could. There is no reason to believe that somebody Some elements in Justice Stevens' dissent were inaccurate. After all, justices are not linguists... they're attorneys. But at a bare minimum one thing is clear: the framers were NOT referring in the 2nd A to some individual right to own firearms, as Scalia arbitrarily legislated.
Scalia most certainly included. But, then again, Supreme court justices are not linguist. They're attorneys. Problem is that Scalia refused to listen to linguists and made up his own pseudo-linguistics.
But you know what was in the minds of those who ratified the constitution and died 200 years ago better than he does. Are you a better mind reader?
After all, the intent of the author isn't the only factor in this debate. What was the intent of those who ratified what the author wrote? Are we to assume everyone who signed on thought exactly as you do about the subject?
I have no idea what you're trying to say. This thread is about the 2nd A. The only way to "overthrow" (if you want to call it that) a government that is allowed by the Constitution is by voting.
Agreed. The Founders were not monolithic thinkers. I'd prefer to see the reasoning behind the wording, and the debate surrounding the amendment. The linguistic database is novel and interesting, but I'm skeptical of how much it can tell us.
For example, my state, Connecticut, ratified the constitution in 1788. It was the fifth state to do so. The CT constitution says: SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Ambiguity there? Do we need to employ some mind reading?
This is confusing. You state explicitly that this post is not about the militia, and then go on to base your argument on the military. I have trouble with understanding what the fundamental difference is. The syntax of the amendment is a bit odd because the militia part and the people's right to keep and bear arms part are disjointed. A point maybe is that when the Constitution was written there was no direct connection between the militia and the military (which is not mentioned at all). The militia was simply every able-bodied adult man who could be cajoled into military support service in times of crises.
The first state to ratify the Constitution was Delaware on December 7, 1787. Their constitution says: § 20. Right to keep and bear arms. Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. More mind reading needed?
Pennsylvania next. Let see what they thought. XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Man...seeing a lot of individual liberty claims here...
Self-defense is the only individual liberty mentioned. This section is in opposition to a peacetime standing army, thus giving citizens the right to play that role. It's interesting but certainly not applicable to the reality.
By a lot of individual liberty claims I mean the sum of the opinions of the states that ratified the constitution, and not within that specific state's constitution
Yes, they seem clear. I agree with all of them, and PA's idea of disbanding the army during peacetime would be great if not completely unrealistic. What I don't see is "to protect from a tyrannical government" which is a claim I have yet to see supported.
I do believe what they wrote was in their minds. Look again what CT wrote in their own constitution which was ratified after the federal one. Do you think they thought, well the Federal constitution denies an individual right to bear arms, but we're going to write: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. People will just know that we think the federal wording and intent is superior.
^^^ Thread Win. Also, the founders wanted "We the People" to be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, both foreign and DOMESTIC. If we check the Federalist Papers, they also wanted us to have the same standard issue arm as a Light Infantryman. That doesn't mean rocket launcher, but it does mean something better than an AR-15 (fully auto), but we have learned to settle where we should have had to. But, here are the Authoritarians looking to seize more power and control by disarming the populace. They can go screw themselves and try and take our guns. Let's see how it goes.
1. If the federal government sought to limit the individual right to own a firearm to participation in a militia, would it be safe to assume they would also exercise their right to enforce that condition of ownership? Do you think the framers intended to limit the right, but never enforced that limitation in practice? 2. If the ratifiers of the constitution also sought to limit the individual right to participation in a militia would they not also limit the right and enforce that limitation within their own charters and constitutions? Seems to me like your mind reader needs recalibration.
How do you know? Can you read their minds? WTF? Where would anybody get the idea that the constitution denies an individual right to bear arms?
From you. Some elements in Justice Stevens' dissent were inaccurate. After all, justices are not linguists... they're attorneys. But at a bare minimum one thing is clear: the framers were NOT referring in the 2nd A to some individual right to own firearms, as Scalia arbitrarily legislated. Your position is that the ownership of firearms is conditional, is it not? If such was the intent, wouldn't those conditions also exist in the charters and constitutions of the states that ratified the federal constitution?
I've posted this before. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html It eviscerates the majority's opinion.
As with the other thread, your interpretation has no basis in law or the rules of grammar. It's why your argument has lost in court every single time it's been tried.
Who said anything about limiting any right? Forget mind reading. Looks like your TEXT reading needs recalibration.
