Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The clear language of the Second Amendment links a well regulated militia to the right of "the people" to bear arms. Quite clear and basic, or it was until Scalia decided that the first clause was merely prefatory. A feat of logical incoherence that the NRA ignores because it supports their goal of increasing revenue for the weapons industry.
Bull. If you understand constitutional theory, and understand how a negative charter of rights works, and you read this:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://billofrights.org/
http://billofrights.org/
It becomes crystal clear, that what the significance you place on the first clause is deliberately misplaced with an end in mind.
You know it, and we know it.
Your arguments and the intent behind them are transparent.
The NRA, and some NRA supporters, generally ignore the reference to a well regulated militia, and the necessity of a militia for the common defense, because to admit and follow the clear language undercuts the NRA's, and your, argument.
You want others to admit to your nonsensical collective rights theory, when it doesn't mesh with reality or history?
Why am I not surprised.
We're supposed to believe, that after a war of revolution against the british sparked by *gasp* gun issues, that in spite of the fact that 40+ states wrote individual RKBA into their state constitutions, that the framers didn't intend for individuals to have the right to keep and bear arms, when they wrote "the people" in amendment 2.
Gee, I'll buy that for a dollar.
Plus, when talking about "the people", are you referring to the original intent of that phrase, which refers to white males of property?
Are you?
For the NRA, linguistic analysis is something that is avoided, and rightfully so, because the clear language, and SCOTUS precedent prior to Heller, is not favorable to the idea of an individual right.
And for anti-gunners, the preamble to the bill of rights and the concept of a negative charter of rights go right out the window and rightfully so, because both of those things destroy the credibility and hence the validity of the collective rights theory, and...well...anti-gunners...the really die hard ones...they just can't have that. Even republican former brady president paul helmke recognizes that the collective rights argument is dead. Whats your excuse?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
30 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read