lemm.ee

5 points

1 year ago

Don’t forget the other part, “in order to protect security of the state…”

It literally says right in it that the purpose is not self defense. Reading an individual right into it goes beyond the express purpose.

And contrary to the poster above, yes, we are going to consider ignoring the Bruen decision because It is so obviously founded upon historical lies that anyone can verify if they were even making a half of an attempt to be unbiased.

Rogue Federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan keep exciting the decision to strike down gun laws that have existed in some cases for hundreds of years. It will be reversed in due course. A lot of people will die in the meantime.

report

[ - ]

prole@sh.itjust.works

2 points

1 year ago

And it wasn’t considered an individual right until Scalia showed his true colors with the Heller decision.

report

[ - ]

BaldProphet@kbin.social

0 points

1 year ago

My guy can’t even quote the Second Amendment correctly.

report

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

Well I was paraphrasing from memory but let’s parse it.

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.

Contrary to your prior posts, well-regulated means regimented. It means they’ve practiced and had training. That there are officers leading the men. This is simply based on the language used at the time the words were written. There is no dispute about this in academics or anywhere else.

The second clause tells us the purpose of the entire amendment: security of a free state. State security is another word that has changed meaning over the years. Today we understand it as “national security.” Back then, in context, these words specifically meant the freedom of a state to perpetuate itself, within nonconsentual interferrwnce by a repressive federal government. Nothing to do with freedom of individuals from any government, only the freedom.of a state government from a federal one.

Bear arms, again, prior to 1776 there are zero documented uses of the term that refer clearly to an individual right to carry guns. Rather 95% of the usage refers expressly to formal warfare, the other 5% is ambiguous, 0% refer clearly to an individual right.

Oh, and also, there is zero dispute that the bill of rights was not meant to expand any rights that the colonists did not already have as a matter of natural law and traditions of western jurisprudence, i.e. English common law. England regulated guns. So does every other western country. So have we in America for almost three hundred years, until Heller.

And then there is infringe. There is no dispute that narrowly tailored restrictions on time, place, and manner, do not infringe enumerated rights.

The framers considered a version of the amendment that would have included an express individual right, but it was soundly defeated at the convention. You would note also that zero original state constitutions went on to an express individual right.

So you see it is your opinions that are abhorrent to reality. You are revising history to suit your lies. I’m sorry you got tricked but you did. Maybe you didn’t go far enough in school. Maybe you were just a gullible person. Maybe you’re just scared and you cling to anything you think might make you safer without actually thinking about it.

I do know also that people are getting fucking tired of burying their kids and if you don’t get on board with some reasonable restrictions, the tide will turn against you overwhelmingly.

report

[ - ]

BaldProphet@kbin.social

2 points

1 year ago

To infringe is to encroach upon. Any restrictions that come close to preventing the people (everywhere in the Bill of Rights referring to the general population of the United States) from keeping and bearing arms encroach upon that right, and therefore infringe upon it.

What right does the Second Amendment prevent from being infringed upon? Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the military to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people. I am a people. You are a people. Let’s look at everywhere else a right is protected from government interference:

1st Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Are you saying that this is not an individual right?

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. Is due process not an individual right?

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This one is conveniently forgotten by authoritarians and statists who don’t realize that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people, rather than granting them.

10th Amendment: “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.” Again, one of the most important amendments that is conveniently forgotten or ignored by those wishing to deprive the people of their rights.

It is nonsensical to think that “the people” in the Second Amendment would be a generalized right (whatever that means) and that it would refer to individuals everywhere else. What a ridiculous and indefensible position to take.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Yeah except for the express language of the actual amendment.

Bear arms.

Well regulated militia.

State security.

General language from unrelated text can hardly overcome what is actually written on the paper. And textualists and originalists know that, that’s why they have to lie about what those three terms meant to the people who wrote them.

They e been lying about it for a long time.

report

[ - ]

BaldProphet@kbin.social

1 point

1 year ago

I can tell you’re disagreeing with me, but your argument is incomprehensible. The “express language of the actual amendment” is easily broken down as follows:

“A well regulated Militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free State(2), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms(3), shall not be infringed.(4)”

A well-regulated (or “well regulated”) militia is one that is properly equipped and trained. The kind of training that would have been expected at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment was fairly minimal, nowhere near what would have been expected of the training for members of the regular army. In this way, the National Guard is not a proxy for the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment, because it receives the more in-depth training of the regular Army. The type of militia training that citizens received in the late 18th century is either illegal or highly suspect today, with members of militias that still perform such training commonly labeled as domestic terrorists. The rest of us train at the range and find other ways to receive useful training. For example, I am a member of ARES and receive some of the same training from FEMA that all emergency services personnel receive regarding the National Incident Management System and Incident Command System.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that civil defense and emergency preparedness skills increase the security of a free state.

(1) and (2) together comprise the prefatory clause, which does not define a specific law, but rather explains why a law is necessary.

Here we have the actual enumerated right that the Second Amendment restricts the government from regulating, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. Not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, but the people. Clear as day to any honest native English speaker. If the intent had been to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, the authors of this amendment could have easily said so. Instead, they wrote that the right is for the people.
“Shall not be infringed.” This is really clear and direct: Any law that encroaches upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is illegal. Any such law.

Even if you wanted to argue that only the militia should be able to keep and bear arms, and that military weapons should only be carried by the police and the military, and that the National Guard is the militia, you run into the problem where every able-bodied male 17-45 is a member of militia. That means that any law preventing a man in that age range from keeping and bearing arms (of any kind!) would still be illegal even if your twisted semantic acrobatics made any sense from a linguistic perspective.

I’ll make a final note here: This is not something that I or millions of my fellow Americans are willing to compromise any further on. This is 100% an issue that a civil war would be waged over, and a permanent rift of the Union.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

The prefatory clause states the law is necessary to protect the state’s security. The context and records of the convention make clear this is in regard to the threat of federal power over state legislatures and open rebellion.

Explain, how is an individual right necessary by implication to achieve that purpose, when the actual language describing regimented, uniformed state militia or guard, adequately achieves the purpose by itself?

You said yourself the prefatory clause deliniates the subsequent clauses. Yet you read “the people” as being “every person” and not "the people [who are securing the state as militia regulars].

Even more curious again because the text says what right the militamen have: to keep and bear arms. You have to go to pretty recent writings to find examples of the words “bear arms” used to refer to a right of all individuals to have whatever guns they want.

More curious still because even if you’re right about the people being all people, you’re still reading out the parts about the militia and state security, as well as totally ignoring the context of the debate at the convention on this, which was in terms of the right of state legislatures and governors to call up militias to deal with rebellions that shall not be infringed by the federal power.

I accept that the revisionst version of history was adopted by our Supreme Court after holding for almost 300 years to the contrary. The pendulum will shift back on this, people are fed up burying their kids and when it happens to you or someone close to you, you’ll see.

You argument about public readiness/safety falls apart in front of the evidence that people are less safe with such ubiquity of guns. The text refers anyhow to state security, which, again you have to read as it was written–in reference to a state government’s sovereign right to perpetuate itself despite threats from rebellion or federalism.

I would concede that there is a general right of a militia age persons to keep arms. As they were then, serialized, registered, after training, not habitually openly carried, not stockpiled machine guns with thousands of rounds. You know, regimented like, with muskets.

I would even concede [unlike originalists and textualists] that the right of such persons to keep guns refers to common weapons of self defense such as shot guns and semi auto pistols with maybe a six round capacity; as the Breuen court speaks of this right to traditional weapons of personal defense.

But why not just can’t stop there? Every gun law has to be unconstitutional. Every weapon has to be available. Any restriction is an infringement. It’s bad faith, wasting time talking, and talking about language, when words don’t matter to conservative voters on this. One thing is sure, a bunch of tubbos with AR-15s aren’t going to wage a civil war. The very concept of individual states or even all the people resisting the modern federal power is moot. You don’t need to conpromise to be found guilty of possession of contraband and sent to prison; there are plenty of people sitting in prison for having a machine gun, didn’t want to compromise.

report