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

[churchmouse]

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.

Regardless of this how do you not see the 27 words concluding that we do not and will not have "GUN CONTROL"

I respect your opinions but I am just a bit confused here. Like the bible, people tend to twist and turn the meanings around to fit their way of thinking. I, and this is just me, See this as a solid "NO GUN CONTROL" statement.

Penn and Teller said it pretty well in about 50 seconds.

 

[Mongo59]

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.

Well, for one thing, I want my M60 back...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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.

I’ve got the feeling my cynical side would be correct and I’d bet on “no guns”.

 

[CampingJosh]

Regardless of this how do you not see the 27 words concluding that we do not and will not have "GUN CONTROL"

I respect your opinions but I am just a bit confused here. Like the bible, people tend to twist and turn the meanings around to fit their way of thinking. I, and this is just me, See this as a solid "NO GUN CONTROL" statement.

Penn and Teller said it pretty well in about 50 seconds.

I do see that as the purpose of the Second Amendment.

I don't think we do our side any favors when we make intellectually dishonest arguments. Saying that it doesn't require interpretation is not an honest take. English shifts over time, and so it takes work to understand what the sentence meant to the people who wrote and ratified it. It isn't the cleanest and clearest amendment.

But I do think it's a good thing when the Atlantic comes to the determination that Justice Stevens's view in the dissent is flawed.

 

[churchmouse]

I do see that as the purpose of the Second Amendment.

I don't think we do our side any favors when we make intellectually dishonest arguments. Saying that it doesn't require interpretation is not an honest take. English shifts over time, and so it takes work to understand what the sentence meant to the people who wrote and ratified it. It isn't the cleanest and clearest amendment.

But I do think it's a good thing when the Atlantic comes to the determination that Justice Stevens's view in the dissent is flawed.

I understand that way of looking at this. But in that all of the original amendments could fall under this same scrutiny. English being a factor but again, I see it pretty clearly and the reasoning behind it. JMHO.

 

[Mongo59]

So what you are saying is the founding fathers didn't want anyone to have firearms but them and we have had it all wrong for the last 200+ years?

I wonder how that happened?

Now that I feel 'woke', me thinks me needs more guns...

 

[churchmouse]

So what you are saying is the founding fathers didn't want anyone to have firearms but them and we have had it all wrong for the last 200+ years?

I wonder how that happened?

Now that I feel 'woke', me thinks me needs more guns...

Yes sir. I am building 3 more as I type.

I am a multi-tasker

 

[CampingJosh]

I understand that way of looking at this. But in that all of the original amendments could fall under this same scrutiny. English being a factor but again, I see it pretty clearly and the reasoning behind it. JMHO.

The other amendments weren't simply ignored for over 200 years, so there was some educated commentary.

You, I, and Scalia's opinion all see it the same way. The importance bit from the article is that the Atlantic found the way of trying to twist the text to mean something different to be unconvincing.

And the Atlantic isn't an NRA-published news magazine. It's a source we can cite to people who want to see it the other way.

 

[Mongo59]

Guns are not the only thing people are trying to modernize.

Take property lines. The original owners made boundaries with rocks and such as markers. Trees grew along said boundaries for 100+ years.

People felt they needed to have records so they had surveyors come 'throw chain' to mark the existing boundaries which is not precise by any means.

Now they feed those inaccurate measurements into GPS and satellite photography and low and behold your neighbor now owns your driveway! You own half of your neighbors 120 year old barn. Some fool planted a hickory tree that is now 3 feet in diameter a good 20 feet on your side of property line and the fence (that was the established line) is now in dispute.

So, which is to be honored? The latest and greatest GPS locators or the physical markers and established boundaries that were accepted for as long as we have been a state?

Do we invalidate and abandon 'common knowledge' in an attempt to impose our current desire or understanding? Do we act as if what has been understood for so long has always been wrong?

This is what they are trying to do with the 2A, but it won't stop there...

 

[AlVine]

Such articles are always annoying, because they examine the Second Amendment in a vacuum. ThatÂ’s the only way they can cast doubt on its meaning. The writings of the men who wrote the amendment tell us exactly what it means, but if they took those into consideration there wouldnÂ’t be anything for the anti-gun crowd to write about.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

My take is if "bear arms" or "keep arms" is in the context of the militia, fine. We are the militia so that point, to me, is moot. We all know what the context of "the people" means.

It are us'ins, as in youi'ns and me'ins.

 

[CopperheadL]

"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". the commas explain everything and keeps it very simple. (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) [FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]describing. ([/FONT][FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) the action. it is very simple to understand. its worded "people" Not militia to keep and bear arms. a grade school child can figure this out with the use of the grammar.[/FONT]

 

[CampingJosh]

Such articles are always annoying, because they examine the Second Amendment in a vacuum.

That's the exact opposite of what happened. They did an in-depth examination of the usage of the words and phrases in as many documents from the time as they could possibly find.

The entire purpose was to identify the context.

 

[CampingJosh]

"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". the commas explain everything and keeps it very simple. (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) describing. (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) the action. it is very simple to understand. its worded "people" Not militia to keep and bear arms. a grade school child can figure this out with the use of the grammar.

If the commas make it so simple, what is the purpose of the fourth one?

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.

I agree about an individual right unconnected to organized militia service, but I don't think it's valuable to our side to pretend that it couldn't have been worded better.

 

[Ingomike]

If the commas make it so simple, what is the purpose of the fourth one?



I agree about an individual right unconnected to organized militia service, but I don't think it's valuable to our side to pretend that it couldn't have been worded better.

I doubt the Founders anticipated their writing being parsed so much...

 

[Al B]

This article by J.Neil Schulman from the Constitution Society seemed like a good parsing of the words. I'm sure some of the good folk here on INGO have seen it before.

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

 

[bwframe]

Let's help the anti's argue their points?

 

[CampingJosh]

I doubt the Founders anticipated their writing being parsed so much...

Over half of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers. They were explicitly setting up a legal document. If they didn't expected the writing to be parsed so much, it could only be because they didn't expect it to be still in use for so long.

 

[CampingJosh]

Lets help the anti's argue their points?

Let's get our points in order and quit using the weak ones that "the anti's" can so easily counter.

 

[bwframe]

We don't have any weak points.