Article from the Atlantic: "The Mysterious Meaning of the Second Amendment"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/

    Now that so much of what has been published in the past 500 years has been digitized and made searchable, the authors here use big data to examine the linguistic arguments in the Heller decision and in Justice Stevens's dissent.

    And before you jump in to comment something about the meaning of 2A not being mysterious at all, read the article.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,176
    113
    North Central
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/

    Now that so much of what has been published in the past 500 years has been digitized and made searchable, the authors here use big data to examine the linguistic arguments in the Heller decision and in Justice Stevens's dissent.

    And before you jump in to comment something about the meaning of 2A not being mysterious at all, read the article.

    Fisrt off, it is sad that you need to ask folks to read the article the post is about, but I see that a lot here.

    It is interesting to ponder but I do not really see what it changes in the big scheme. Did you think it did?
     

    Tanfodude

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 25, 2012
    3,886
    83
    4 Seasons
    Such overthinking and over interpretation of a very simple, straightforward sentence. The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. Humans tend to define the 2A on what they think it should mean rather than it's purpose when it was written.
     

    Ddillard

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 29, 2016
    1,604
    27
    Jeffersonville
    I can see the reasoning of both sides of militia and individual rights. A simple defining measure that should be considered in the thought process of the framers is that a large standing military was not even being considered. Sighting this line of thought should be considered as a belief that all individuals would thus be expected to 'keep and bare' such for a call-up measure when or as needed. The individual, thus was expected to defend themseves and the new nation as well. Thus, all citizens would have been considered militia. In one sense or another the meanings put forth were meshed as both militia and individual. ~~"One Man's Opinion!"
     

    CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    It is interesting to ponder but I do not really see what it changes in the big scheme. Did you think it did?

    No, the Atlantic didn't have any authority to choose anything. But they do have credibility with Americans who rely on traditional media outlets, so it was nice to see them publish the result they found even though that result was--from their perspective--probably not what they hoped for.

    If anything might shift from the linguistic study they did, my hope would be that it's the recognition of two rights protected by 2A (keep arms and bear arms) rather than one that is often reduced to just keep arrms at home.
     

    MCgrease08

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Mar 14, 2013
    14,374
    149
    Earth
    Another lefty academic exercise being concocted to try and cause confusion when there is none in an attempt to discredit 2A.

    The definition of a militia is codified in US law and it's pretty freaking clear. This is the modern version.

    §246. Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

    The Founding Father's were even more clear in their definitions.

    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
    - George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
    - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

    "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
    - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

    "...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

    I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
    - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

    And then there of course there is the hundreds of years of case law that has already decided that the militia is made up of individual citizens. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/iss4/6/
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    It's a good thing we have 2A, otherwise we couldn't arm the military. Military being synonymous with armed forces...
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    I’ll admit I didn’t complete the article but read enough to get the gist. This sort of reminds me of searching the net with certain health symptoms I have trying to find out what they really mean. Context matters. I might get lucky and find out the true cause of my symptoms or I might fall victim to my ignorance or my confirmation biases. It matters that the British tried to disarm colonists so that they could control them. It matters that arms were a part of life for both protection and for feeding families for years before the 2A was ever written. It matters that God gave us the natural right to self defense. When your goal is to build a case for tearing down the meaning of the 2A, using search tools to build up a sort of pros/cons decision tree, the tools used in this article would be a way of doing it while dismissing all of the back ground of why it was enshrined in the first place.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    FTA:
    The amendment itself contains 27 words: “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.” This provision references both the collective right of a militia and an individual right.

    No, the text of the second amendment does not. Nowhere in those 27 words is stated or even implied the "collective right of a militia." Rather, what is implied is the collective state interestin maintaining a militia.

    The only right stated or implied in the second amendment is the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    I’ll admit I didn’t complete the article but read enough to get the gist. This sort of reminds me of searching the net with certain health symptoms I have trying to find out what they really mean. Context matters. I might get lucky and find out the true cause of my symptoms or I might fall victim to my ignorance or my confirmation biases. It matters that the British tried to disarm colonists so that they could control them. It matters that arms were a part of life for both protection and for feeding families for years before the 2A was ever written. It matters that God gave us the natural right to self defense. When your goal is to build a case for tearing down the meaning of the 2A, using search tools to build up a sort of pros/cons decision tree, the tools used in this article would be a way of doing it while dismissing all of the back ground of why it was enshrined in the first place.

    I don't find the research to be particularly compelling. It primarily analyzes text authored under the auspices of the state - and of course, the state will discuss (and thus, write) matters that are of interest primarily to the state. So, the percentage of use of "keep arms", "bear arms", etc. in the context of militia/military, or individual/personal application has no bearing on whether the textual meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the second amendment intends an individual or a collective right.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    And I find it funny when they try to say "Its only for miltia." and claim we must be in the national guard, etc to qualify. However the whole point of the amendment is to be able to rebel against a govt that is not following the constitution. And being in the military would put you in the very employ of whom the 2A was designed to be able to overthrow. So that argument is laughable.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    I don't find the research to be particularly compelling. It primarily analyzes text authored under the auspices of the state - and of course, the state will discuss (and thus, write) matters that are of interest primarily to the state. So, the percentage of use of "keep arms", "bear arms", etc. in the context of militia/military, or individual/personal application has no bearing on whether the textual meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the second amendment intends an individual or a collective right.

    We’re in agreement even though we came at it at slightly different angles.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    This is a legendary-tier example of talking a lot and saying nothing of value.

    You do not need a degree to understand the 2A. You do not need a doctorate. You do not need years of studying linguistics. It is clearly and plainly written, and means exactly what it says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It means "no gun control". It means "the people have the right to keep and carry arms". Period.

    The 2A was written in the shortest and simplest possible language specifically to thwart this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. No interpretation is required. It means "no gun control".
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    This is a legendary-tier example of talking a lot and saying nothing of value.

    You do not need a degree to understand the 2A. You do not need a doctorate. You do not need years of studying linguistics. It is clearly and plainly written, and means exactly what it says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It means "no gun control". It means "the people have the right to keep and carry arms". Period.

    The 2A was written in the shortest and simplest possible language specifically to thwart this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. No interpretation is required. It means "no gun control".

    Bingo.
     

    CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    The 2A was written in the shortest and simplest possible language specifically to thwart this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense. No interpretation is required. It means "no gun control".

    False. And obviously so on it's face. If the 27 words of the amendment were the shortest and simplest possible language for the message you say it means, you would not be able to say it in three words.

    Both the Heller ruling and the dissent relied heavily on linguistic examinations. The point of the article is that Scalia's analysis (the good side) mostly holds up to a deeper examination and that Stevens's doesn't.
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    I've often wondered if it was put to a national referendum today, no guns, or no restrictions on guns, what the outcome would be.
     
    Top Bottom