I've done this one before - or one like it.
The sentence structure of our 2nd amendment is important, and too many of us are either willing to be bamboozled by the Ammosexuals, or we're not willing to risk sounding soft and Librul on the issue of Gun Control.
Here's a bit I dug up in The Denver Post from a few years back:
The main argument about the amendment has always been a semantic one: What is meant? What is the intention? I use the present tense, because grammatical deconstruction is done in the here and now. We are not trying to divine intentions from our personal beliefs of what the Founders “stood for” or what they “believed.” The Founders are dead, but their words remain alive in the present, and their words, as well as their meticulous grammatical construction, leave no doubt as to their intentions.
Read these sentences:
“Their project being complete, the team disbanded.”
“Stern discipline being called for, the offending student was expelled.”
In both cases, the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence: it is integral. The team disbanded because the project was complete; the student was expelled because his offense called for stern discipline. This causal relationship cannot be ignored. Reading the Second Amendment as “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” clearly shows the same causal relationship as the example sentences; in this case, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because it is essential to maintaining a well-regulated militia.Words matter. What those words meant to the people who wrote them 230 years ago can give us a decent perspective on what they thought was important back then and what can be carried forward to us all these years later, but that was way back then and this is right here right now. We have to deal with what's going on today. We need laws that help us sort ourselves out now. We need lawmakers and industry leaders who can see past their own profits and venal ambitions. And we need everybody to stop fuckin' around. Get something done. Now.
Cuz guess what, chicken butt - a coupla hundred more dead Americans since Orlando:
(the interactive map crapped out, so I put up this link to Slate instead)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That is the same argument the Heller majority made. You knew that, right?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the Heller dissent authored by justice Stevens insisted that the dependent clause modifies the subject of the main clause rather than the entire main clause. Absolutes modify the entire main clause, usually by supplying a rationale for the action that takes place in the main clause(as in your examples), they do not modify the subject of the main clause.
Actually, I'm OK with Heller - an individual right is easy for me get up with, according to how I hear the words in my head. My main bitch is with the "debate" that ignores that Ablative bit altogether. I want all 27 words included in the meaning of the thing.
DeleteBut what I really wanna get at is the fact that we have a very different circumstance now. We have a standing professional military, and the need for "ordinary" citizens to keep and bear arms is greatly diminished, if not plain silly at this point.
I'll take one more step, and say I think that the proliferation of guns and the ridiculously easy access to them has turned the Right To Keep And Bear Arms into a threat to our democracy instead of the means of protecting it.
We have to make some changes.
eVille Mike,
DeleteAll 27 words are used in the meaning of the thing. The Heller majority read the prefatory clause the very same way ("because") as you said it ought to be read. You ought to be bitching about the Heller dissenters who read the prefatory clause as though it modifies the subject of the main clause, as such blatant dishonesty tends to harden positions and make the wider debate that you want to have much less likely.
Then I guess I don't quite understand what we're disagreeing about. And maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Appropriate regulation of gun ownership is what I think needs to happen, and I don't see how A2 prohibits that regulation when it says an armed citizenry is necessary to the government, and so it has to be regulated by the government.
DeleteNecessary to the government or to a free state?
DeleteIt is instructive to read Memorial and Remonstrance and count how many reasons relating to individual liberty that Madison and the other "faithful members of a free State" gave for opposing "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion."
The very first commentator on the second amendment, Tench Coxe, wrote in the Federal Gazette in 1789: "As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Joseph Story said of 2A: "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers."
The Aymette vs TN court stated: "The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution."
A later Tennessee Supreme Court added self defense to that list.
So it could hardly be said that defense of the government is the only reason for the guarantee of the right.
Still I think you are right to look to what might be reasonable regulations. Justice Breyer's dissent in Heller was fine as far as the right to bear arms in defense of the state goes, since keeping a long gun such as an AR-15 locked and unloaded when not in use is reasonable for defense of state. It is not as though there could be an instantaneous attack on the whole country, so the minute or so it might take to unlock and load a long arm is reasonable. But his argument was facile as relates to the right to keep arms for self defense as a locked and unloaded weapon is useless to the person in immediate danger and so such regulation amounts to a denial of the right.
Aymette vs TN gives some hints at how we might honor the right while placing reasonable regulations. The right to keep arms of the type suitable for the common defense is unqualified, but the right to bear arms can be regulated to protect public safety provided the right to bear arms is not denied altogether.
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
ReplyDeleteI think that argument holds up OK when we're talkin' muskets and bayonets and the occasional cute little 3-pounder, but it only works now if you're willing to grant a private citizen the right to own hand grenades and F16s and Bradleys and nukes. Don't be daft.
2nd - please don't bother citing anything else that starts with "The free white men...". Seriously? This is from a court in a southern state that was deciding whether or not to join a bloody rebellion against The United States of America; a court that seems to have been advocating the violent overthrow of our democracy - issuing threats in the guise of court decisions. Please leave off with that. Maybe it has some bearing in the body of law, but it is totally bereft of moral standing. Pick something else.
Argue a deep abiding affection for the glory and power of the gun, but all the rest of this is nonsense, and a little too precious for me. You like guns? Fine. Keep your guns. I really really really don't want to take them away. What I absolutely insist on is that we come up with something that makes it less likely for some jagoff with a gun fetish and a chip on his shoulder to fuck it all up for the rest of us.
If you're going to assume the role of Legal Beagle/Gun Rights Advocate, you'll need to put up or shut up, cuz everybody else has pretty much had it with the daily slaughter of Americans while the NRA's Coin-Operated politicians sit on their thumbs doing nothing but spending the blood money on their re-election campaigns. The jig is up, Bugsy.
I'll start: I want gun sales closely restricted and monitored; roughly the same as motor vehicles - background checks, training & licensing, insurance requirements, etc. Where's the middle ground? Where can we get together?
Luv ya😀
Jeez eVille Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf you go 'round with pictures of chairman Mao, you aint gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.
In other words, chill out. I presented some suggestions in the last two paragraphs of my last post, which you seem to have missed while having a hissy fit over what persons said long ago regarding the right to keep and bear arms -way before the NRA even existed.
Sorry to say but none of your suggestions would have stopped the most recent killing spree. Background checks failed to stop that kook's purchase, training would have only made him a more effective killer, and Insurance will only burden the average gun owner. Kooks like that kook who bought his guns a few weeks before killing the people in Orlando would not give a shit about a few dollars insurance payment.
You sound like the typical do-nothing apologist. If any given proposal doesn't fix the whole problem all at once, then there's no point in trying.
DeleteFuck that.
None of my suggestions would've stopped Mateen? Well, since we're indulging in the time-honored malarkey of crystal-gazing and retrospective speculation, here's my version: everything I suggested would've worked, and it woulda worked perfectly.
Can we drop the bullshit now and get to work on this? Cuz I'm not willing to go on doing nothing while 100,000 Americans every year are killed or wounded simply because a buncha whiny-butt pussy "conservatives" don't have the balls to try.
Not crystal-gazing, the kook purchased his guns legally and passed the background check. You can't seriously believe that an insurance requirement would have stopped that kook.
ReplyDeleteThen we should prob'ly (at least) address the stoopid notion that AR15-style guns are good things for anybody but LE and Military.
ReplyDeleteBut then - why does it have to be only about Mateen? 30,000 dead Americans every year. Over a million since the 70s, including 20-40,000 kids. Prove to me you give one flying fuck about any of those people. Lose the ballet slippers and tell me what you DO propose.
The honest and open discussion you want will only happen when those denying an individual right to keep and bear arms stop the lying, and others stop treating the right to bear arms as though it need not be upheld.
ReplyDeleteYou might have read the recent 9th circuit decision allowing ban on concealed carry.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf
That decision was fine on the narrow question of whether 2A protection encompass concealed carry, but the judges said that they would allow bans on concealed carry even if the second amendment had been found to encompass concealed carry!
The line concerning which types of weapons are too dangerous for the general public to legally own has been drawn at full automatic weapons. This has stood for decades and even the NRA accepts it. Now some want to roll that line back to semi-auto weapons. Do you really think the right to bear arms ought to be limited to lever/bolt/pump action rifles? Should the gov require all those Garands and M1 carbines handed out under the civilian marksmanship program to be handed in?
The last 2 paragraphs of my post at 6/22/2016 11:02am provide a stating point staking out ground where a discussion balancing individual rights and public safety might begin. The answers you want will come from an open and honest discussion, so show me you really want that by admitting the Ablative Absolute argument used by the deniers of a broad individual right is BS.
I do not believe most rabidly anti-gun liberals want an open and honest discussion, this issue is too good a wedge for them to give it up. Moreover, if they were to finally admit that all of the arguments they have been making the last 30 years (States Right as in Hickman, 9th Circuit; Collective Right as in Silveira, also 9th circuit; in service of the state militia only as in Heller dissent)regarding 2A were BS, what would their constituents, students, former students think? They are too invested in the lies to give them up easily, but with enough people pointing out the absurdity of those lies, maybe we can make some progress.
So yeah - no proposal, just more dancing. You could've saved all the work you put into that comment by just saying you're unhappy with the shape of the conference table, and that you'll have to insist on everybody getting 2 pencils AND a pen, and the note pads are yellow instead of the powder blue that you asked for, and these donuts aren't fresh, and blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteI think you're a phony. I think you'll try to blow smoke and obfuscate and change the subject until we all just throw up our hands and walk away - because that's what's always worked in the past. Not this time - not with me anyway.
You have the right to own a gun. You also own ALL responsibilities that go with owning that gun, and the rest of us have a reasonable expectation for you to step up and quit being such a fucking crybaby about it.
Your gun, your problem - not mine.
Universal background checks - every sale; every transfer - no exceptions
Rifles and Shotguns with mag capacity greater than 5 = illegal
Handguns with mag capacity greater than 8 = illegal
Purchase (over 18 ID required, btw) more than 50 rounds at a time = get a call from the local cops
Grandfather some/most existing guns as of a date certain, but restrict, register, and license
Grandfather most/any "vintage" weapons, but restrict, register and license
Possession of unregistered firearm = federal prison
Carry Permit (concealed or otherwise) - training, re-training and more training, at your expense
Liability insurance requirement for every purchase on every gun
Home Owner's Insurance rider for every household owning a gun
Nobody under 18 buys or owns (or possesses w/o direct adult supervision) any gun
Every gun must be traceable (Your gun was lost or stolen? Tough shit, princess - pay a fine for being a dumbass)
Federal tax on every purchase and every transfer (You want a gun? OK, but you pay for it, not me)
There's prob'ly lots more that I'll come across as I travel the toobz, but that'll do for a start.
These things are in no way a detriment to your 2A right to keep and bear arms, so just in case you're suddenly afflicted by Dan Bidondi Fever, you can take "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" and shove it up your ditty bag.
Well now you are starting to sound more than a little bit "soft and librul on gun control."
ReplyDeleteBackground checks, OK, but why would anyone need a license to exercise a right?
There you go trying to change the subject again. I stopped worrying about people calling me names in about the 5th grade. I'm not afraid of words.
DeleteBut anyway, gee, I dunno - can you say "Voter ID"?
How 'bout "stop and frisk"?
Or maybe "Let's see your Press Pass".
Does TSA screening ring a bell?
Pre-Employment drug testing?
We mitigate "rights" all the time, and you know that.
As a society, we have every right to force you to accept every bit of the responsibility for your actions, and that includes forcing you to stop shifting the increased risks engendered by your gun ownership onto the rest of us.
Of your 5 examples, only stop and frisk involves a Constitutionally enumerated right. You must be aware that stop and frisk has been ruled unconstitutional.
Deletehttp://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/landmark-decision-judge-rules-nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices
Of course each of us is responsible for our actions, but we are not responsible the actions of other adults. It is a neat trick to put all gun owners in the same class as those who cause damage with firearms.
So far you have said the we have a right to own firearms, but your insistence that a "right" can be infringed/mitigated/licensed demonstrates you and I have a different view of rights so I do not think we will ever agree apart from background checks.
Interesting that now you're trying to hide behind "enumerated". Proof again of the wisdom of the Georgia delegation when they voiced their reluctance to accept the Bill of Rights. ie: "...eventually some fool will insist that there are no rights other than those enumerated..." (words to that effect anyway)
ReplyDeleteEvery item on that list has to do with an enumerated right - firstly, the Right To Vote, dummy. Did you really just skip over that one? All the others are pretty obviously issues under A4: Unreasonable Search & Seizure, and A5: Self-Incrimination.
And you're wrong again (funny how that just keeps happening, innit?) - because rights get mitigated and changed and limited and redefined fairly often, ya boob.
But no matter. Doing nothing is still not an an option. And since you're only willing to agree to Background Checks (which you've asserted are of little or no value), I'll start with: Blow that one out your ass, Skeezix - you'll have to do a helluva lot better than that.
And y'know what? I think some pretty bright somebody might be able to make a fair case for considering the 200 million non-gun owners as a Class in order to bring a nice fat class action against the whole Gun Death Industrial Complex.
Class:
A term applied to statutory enactments which divide the people or subjects of legislation into classes, with reference either to the grant of privileges or the imposition of burdens, upon an arbitrary, unjust, or invidious principle of division, or which, though the principle of division may be sound and justifiable, make arbitrary discriminations between those persons or things coming within the same class. State v. Garbroski, 111 Iowa, 496. 82 N. W. 959, 56 L. It. A. 570, 82 Am. St. liep. 524; In re Hang Kie, 69 Cal. 149, 10 Pac. 327 ; Hawkins v. Roberts, 122 Ala. 130, 27 South. 327; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 58 N. W. loO; Wagner v. Milwaukee County, 112 Wis. 001, 88 N. W. 577; State v. Brewing Co., 104 Tenn. 715, 59 S. W. 1033, 78 Am. St. Rep. 941.
What do you think, Beagle? Wanna try that one on?
Well, I see who you are now. You are someone who wants to mitigate, change, limit, and redefine rights as you see fit. At least you are honest, which is more than can be said for most 2A haters.
ReplyDeleteNext time why don't you just cut to the chase and save your readers the non-sense about Ablative Absolutes, about how you are OK with Heller, and how you don't want to take away anyone's gun, and just get to the point: you want to redefine the right the right to keep and bear arms, any maybe a few other rights.
Nowhere have I said I hate guns or A2 or anything or anybody. Nowhere have I said I want to redefine the right to keep and bear arms. I've said I insist that gun owners keep their shit in their own pants. And I'll go on saying all that until you grow up and accept fully that the responsibility for the carnage due to the proliferation and the availability of guns belongs to the people who own the fucking guns - because If you thwart the efforts of people who're trying to prevent the carnage, then you own the responsibility for that carnage - and you're not allowed to foist any of that responsibility onto anyone else.
DeleteIf anything, you're the one wasting time playing with words. I pointed out that you don't get to dismiss and ignore the simple fact that A2 requires regulation.
And also too - "Well, I see who you are now..."? You don't get to define me. Nice try, but that little debate tactic is old and tired, and you should go ahead and admit that you threw it out there because you've got nothin' else - that it gives you cover to safely tuck tail and run, crying about how "the big bad Librul's being mean to me".
Time to get up on your hind legs, Short Pants.
2A requires regulation of who/what?
ReplyDeleteWho said: "rights get mitigated and changed and limited and redefined fairly often, ya boob."
The responsibility belongs to the persons who commit the crimes. My guns have never hurt a soul. But nice try once again attempting to lump all gun owners with the criminals. Just admit it, your goal is not to disarm the criminals, but to disarm everyone -that is the point of your collective guilt BS.
You are defining yourself, and the picture keeps getting clearer with each post.
A2 requires regulation of gun-ownership - says so right there in the words and stuff.
ReplyDeleteI said "rights get mitigated..." because that's what happens, dopey.
There are now limits to Free Speech that weren't there in 1787
There are now limits to the practice of religion that weren't there in 1787
There are limits to property rights - remember a little thing called "Slavery"?
Women and 18-year-olds and black people get to vote now.
You don't have the right to keep Jews outa your country club now.
It goes on and on, and things change over time, and circumstances of today are not the same as they were 100 years ago, and a lot of it it will be different 100 years from now - and you know that.
Ya gotta get a handle on your knee-jerk paranoia. This False Dichotomy thing you got goin' is really tiresome.
Your guns haven't hurt anyone? You contribute to the culture of gun violence every day you refuse to accept that you don't have to be directly culpable in order to be held responsible - under the law. Group Responsibility is not the same as Collective Guilt; you may be "blameless", but that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of taking steps to prevent (or to make amends for) the other members of your group who're committing these atrocities.
You're "The Good Guy With A Gun"? Prove it. Do something about the Bad Guys that doesn't include the idiotic notion of heroic impromptu shootouts or creatively sadistic retribution after the fact. Help us find a solution - or a partial solution - or the beginnings of a solution - something that recognizes prevention over remedy, with the understanding that doing nothing is unacceptable when 100,000 Americans are Gun Casualties every year.
Get off your ass and help.
Your efforts do far more harm than good, why on earth would anyone want to work with you?
ReplyDeleteeVille MIke's version of A2:
Well-regulated gun ownership being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be mitigated, redefined, licensed, etc as congress sees fit.
Now you're gettin' it. Regulation is necessary to a free state - exactly right. Maybe this'll help: I'm in favor of appropriate regulation because God is in favor of appropriate regulation. Make ya feel better?
ReplyDelete"Your efforts do far more harm than good..." That's an assertion, not an argument. You might as well say "more guns will restore our depleted populations of pixies and unicorns". It's like you're not even trying now. Of course, you do sound like the typical one-trick pony "conservative", who seems to think "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is some kinda magic spell. It isn't. I told you several rounds ago that that weak-ass shit just won't cut it in this national debate we're trying to have, and I think I've demonstrated that fairly well.
So, do you have something constructive for us, or will you be needing a little more time to sulk?
My copy says "A well-regulated militia" is necessary to a free state, but it is encouraging that you now see "free state" rather than "the government" so we are making progress. But my copy doesn't say anything about eville mike getting to mitigate, license, infringe, or redefine as he pleases. Not much of a national debate so far, maybe more will join in later?
ReplyDeleteYou're still just nigglng the language with the bit about "free state" vs "government". Those two things are interdependent, not mutually exclusive - especially in light of our little experiment in Self-Government.
ReplyDeleteI may not be culpable for the actions of a drunk driver, but I have to accept some responsibility for how the government of a free state reacts to his choosing to abuse his rights under the law. I can reasonably expect my government (ie: me and you) to curtail that guy's Right To Party. And it's not just my responsibility because I like to drink and I like to drive my car; it requires your involvement even if you're a tea-totalling Methodist bus-rider - it requires the involvement of everybody because it's a matter of Public Health and Safety, and because we all share the responsibility of trying to make the joint a more perfect union.
Owning a gun increases the risk of death and injury for yourself, your family and everybody in your neighborhood. You have to stop pretending it's the other way around; you have to stop pretending the exercise of your 2A right has no negative effect on anybody else, and you have to stop shirking the responsibilities that go with your contribution to that negative effect.