(02-12-2024, 11:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: (02-12-2024, 10:36 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: And I'm sure they clearly envisioned a "populace" chock full of mental nut jobs sauntering into synagogues, schools and wal-marts with long clips on AR-15s spraying lead into the defenseless.
Clearly this was their intent - so we should honor that.
And if they didn't mean what they chose to write in the amendment, they [BLEEP] that part up.
The constitution does not provide for a permanent, long-standing army. It gave congress the power ""To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." Since the founders did not advocate for a peacetime standing army, the need for a well-regulated militia was obviously vital for defense of the nation. Citizens needed to be armed and ready to fight if the need ever arose. You are correct that they wrote what they meant.
"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."
Let me rephrase it for you, filling in the gaps of that which is left unspoken, "since we don't think it's wise to have a long standing, peacetime army, due to the various historical examples of abuse by tyrants, we will need and rely on our citizens for defense, so we need to make sure our populace is armed and ready to fight against any threat to the constitution." Those threats could be foreign invaders, but it's also tyrants who try to usurp power from the citizenry.
They didn't [BLEEP] anything up. There were disagreements between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalists, but the part above were the parts to which they agreed. They would have been more disgusted how we use our military as an offensive weapon around the world than they would at the incredibly rare but public abuses of the 2nd amendment. They had murderers back in the 1700s.
Data isn't on your side for this argument. Emotional appeal is your strongest argument, so let's go ahead and get to it.
I don't need an argument to state clearly and definitively that you are offering up
interpretations of the amendment.
Which was why I initially said this 2nd Amend. semantics road was pointless.
You're gonna tell me what you think it means - I'm gonna tell you that even if that's what they meant, it doesn't make sense anymore.
Blah, blah, blah.... No thanks. Been down that road 100 times.
You aren't advancing "data" - you're forwarding interpretations.
Unless you're about to produce a comprehensive assemblage of documentation of the "founders" debates on the topic which outline their interpretation of the word "militia." Otherwise - you're just attempting to frame ancillary context as a "definition"
I'll just leave this here so we can skip most of the part I don't care about:
I believe in the premise behind the amendment - and I don't want to disarm citizens. But the way we are utilizing the amendment legally doesn't make sense in the modern context. Americans would be safer with smarter regulation of the sale and accessibility of weapons capable of mass shootings. And Hawaii should be able to make their own policy about open carry of guns.
