Leftforge Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment...

Do you realise you have spent the last 15 pages saying this is not so?

No, I haven't.

If you're making some point about the militia, I have to repeat: the right is not connected to militia service. One need not be a member of the militia to exercise the right. That's the "self-defense" part.

If one does participate in the militia, that's where the "defense of one's community" comes in.

The Second guarantees that the individual may be armed in a way suitable for militia service but is not obligated to participate in it.

This is yet again completely different from what you said so far. Again, your reading of the constitution changes depending on your argumentative needs. Not only have you gone from no connection between the necessity of a militia to an asymmetric connection, with the asymmetry being the opposite of that implied by the sentence structure; but you are subjecting the whole to the regulative idea of self-defense as opposed to the defense of one's community, which isn't mentioned in the text at all.

As long as you insist that the constitution merely recognises these preexisting rights, and that the true authority over what those preexisting rights are is @Paladin and no-one else, I guess the text of the constitution is indeed irrelevant. But intellectual honesty would demand that you'd at least stop pretending to any respect for the document, if this is how you'll treat it.

A pretty good analogy, actually. In both cases, a regulation under the guise of one thing or another is used to implement a de facto ban on something the Supreme Court has ruled cannot constitutionally be banned.

Of course, in the case of the backdoor abortion bans, it's actually happening.

No, it doesn't.

My position is this:
1. People have a right to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves, others, their property, their community, and, if necessary, their government. This right is *not* granted by the Constitution. It is pre-supposed by the Second Amendment which is in accord with the natural rights position of the Framers.
2. The right is *not* connected to militia service. This is affirmed by Supreme Court ruling. I don't have to participate in a militia to have a gun, and EVEN IF there is never, ever, ever going to be another need for the militia, my right still remains. The capability of a militia to defend a free state is why the Second prohibits the state from infringing the peoples' right to arms.
3. The "arms" referred to by the Second Amendment are small arms and this is clear from context, common sense, historical meaning, and legal precedent.

The militia clause explicitly invokes "the security of a free state." You're the one who's ignoring the text now.

It does.

Never claimed that, though my understanding is in the mainstream of opinion on the Second. And if you're telling my view is wrong, aren't you equally claiming a position of authority?

You're trying to find a way--some way, any way!--to limit the right through creative interpretation of the Second.

I have complete respect for it. I believe it means what it says. Let's go back to the text:

"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 maintain THIS is the same meaning:

"Since armed, organized civilians are a means of defending their state from tyranny or threat, the government shall not infringe upon the right of individuals to keep and bear arms."

THAT is how I interpret the Second Amendment. I've substituted "armed, organized civilians" for "militia" (which is the meaning), I've expanded on what "the security of a free state" means, I've taken the active clause out of the passive voice, and I've clarified that "the people" (as everywhere else in the Bill of Rights) means individuals, not some New Deal-era codswallop about it being the people collectively.

Everything I've written in this thread is perfectly consistent with this vision. I do not change my interpretation to suit my argument. You just refuse to see my interpretation.

Hmm, the re-stated version seems even more conditioned on the militia as pretext.

Not really. I don't think there's much difference between the connotations of "being necessary" and "since" ... the second is just more modern.

It also doesn't mention self-defense as something distinct from the defense of the community.

It does.

But here's the question: the pretext of what?

Read it carefully.

The need for the militia to exist justifies something. What?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms?

NO.

The prohibition on infringing that right.

Don't believe me?

Look at the main clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's written in the passive voice (the subject is omitted).

Re-write it in the active voice (provide a subject) and tell me I'm wrong.

Keeping and bearing arms is inextricably bound with defense of oneself and the community in English common law.

Regardless, Supreme Court rulings state unequivocally that the Second protects an individual right of self-defense *totally unconnected* to service in a militia.

I see that as saying it can't be infringed because we need it for a militia. It clearly can be read that way.

Now I'm wondering why the 1st is the only one written in the active voice. Weird.

YES.

EXACTLY.

However, that doesn't mean the militia is a precondition for the right.

"We might need a militia some day, so don't go taking away people's guns."

CORRECTAMUNDO.

For a liberal retard like yourself, yes.

Not really sure what you're getting at, but I've read up on the first amendment. Madison, along with some antifederalists, believed that the public sphere was important tp the right of free speech. The public sphere was considered the media or public meetings or bar room netting or in modern times, places like Wordforge. In other words, anywhere where people could discuss freely without molestation. In Madison'smind, it wasn't just restricted to the press, but any form of communication. The public sphere meant that people could discuss just about anything and about anything in order to secure a free state. What Madison was saying is that discourse is important and Americans should be allowed to discuss the government in whatever medium they want without being arrested or the government preventing them from doing anything to them.

Here's a pretty good example of why you fail. Read Paladin's response -- that's how you argue your point without looking stupid and without closing the mind of the other person. You wasted all that time worshiping Castle, you could learn a lot from Paladin.

Yes, you clearly do not understand what he was getting at.

Search terms: "active voice", "passive voice"

Now go, learn something.

Dealing with you is like dealing with garamet, it's never going to result in an honest conversation. All you want to do is troll. I'll let Captain Kirk say the rest in regards to your ilk.

Not surprisingly, @Federal Farmer completely misunderstands the message of that clip.

And probably doesn't know what "active" vs "passive" voice means.

For the latter, I blame the public schools in the Red States.

The former makes me wonder why so many gun lubbers are so ANGRY all the time.

And they wonder why we don't think they can be trusted with sharp objects.

Yap, yap, yap...

That is a very different thing from claiming that the 2nd amendment says so. Try to remember that you are not trying to answer the question, "What rights do I have?", but rather "What does the 2nd amendment say?" In this case, your claim was that it distinguishes (!) self-defense from the defense of the community. This is plainly not in the text.

I'm not getting at anything at all, but nothing you said has anything to do with the active vs. passive voice.

The Supreme Court in Heller v DC also looked at all the various state constitutions, which also list rights, to clarify what the framers were thinking.

For example, Connecticut's 1818 constitution, Mississippi's 1817 constitution, and Michigan's 1835 constitutions all say:

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.​

Pennsylvania's 1790 constitution and Kentucky's 1792 constitution both said:

That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.​

Maine had a similar wording in 1819:

Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.​

Someone probably noticed that the provision was in conflict with freedom of speech, so Kentucky's 1891 constitution said:

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.

Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.

Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.

Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.

Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.

Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.​

Note that the first and fifth provisions refer to defending their lives, liberties, and property, while the seventh is just a restatement of the right to bear arms to defend themselves and to defend the state.

Another basic version running through early state constitutions is found in Massachusetts' 1780 constitution:

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
​

North Carolina's 1776 version was:

That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power​

It's pretty clear that the Founders were aware of the connection to militia service, but also quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms was also a personal right, going along with the right to self-defense.

I didn't say distinguishes; I said people have the right to keep and bear arms for both self-defense and defense of their community. And I maintain the Second states this.

If you totally ignore context, to bear arms could have a non-individualistic interpretation (e.g., a solider could bear arms for his country). However, keep is unequivocal. The right is a personal one, and keeping and bearing arms in a personal sense means self-defense. You could say it doesn't use the words "self-defense," but you'd be degenerating back into an argument as silly as "arms means nukes." In the context of the time, no one understood "to keep and bear arms" as anything OTHER than a personal right to keep weapons for one's own defense (and, as I shall show next, for defense of the community).

The Second invokes the maintenance of the security of a free state as justification for the inhibition against infringing on the personal right, therefore defense of the community is an inescapable implication of the amendment. If one has no right to act in defense of the community, it's difficult to see how a right to keep and bear arms would have ANY connection to the security of a free state.

And that this is a distinction, as some access to weapons only applies to the one (e.g. cannons), and some only to the second (e.g., private ownership). If you are claiming that this is what the 2nd amendment says, you have to show where it does so. If you're claiming that this is just generally true independently of the 2nd amendment, then that is fine, but a completely different claim.

Failure to distinguish those two claims from each other indicates the extent of your disinterest in the 2nd amendment's content; you are not interpreting what it means, only checking whether it directly contradicts your beliefs. That's why every time you have tried to give an overview of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, you have started with a list of things it doesn't say according to your beliefs, rather than things it does.

Oh, for fuck's sake. How many times can I say it? ARMS MEANS SMALL ARMS. PERSONAL ARMS. INDIVIDUAL ARMS. No one OTHER THAN YOU is trying to claim that it means more than that. People have a right to small arms for their own protection. And, if need be, they can use them in the militia to defend the free state. Why is this not clear to you?

You seem stuck on the argument that if the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly state make, model, caliber, barrel length, and magazine capacity, that the term "arms" is therefore infinitely expansive and includes VX gas and neutron bombs. It isn't. It means small arms. PERIOD. It's SILLY to continue arguing this. The plain text is clear. Common sense meaning is clear. Historical context is clear. Legal precedent is clear.

I'm done responding to this "cannons, nukes, and napalm" argument. If the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the arms in the Second is small arms isn't enough for you, I can't help you. YOU ARE THE ONE WILLFULLY MISINTERPRETING THE TERM, not me.

And don't try to claim my position is somehow deficient because you are using the term in a way no one else does.

I've already shown you how each is supported by the text.

If you cannot show how my beliefs are contradicted by the text, your claim is meaningless.

I have already made the argument for all 3 of my points in post #485. Point #1 is explicit; the Second doesn't create an individual right, it acknowledges a pre-existing one. Point #2 is shown in the wording of the text as I have repeatedly indicated: the militia clause justifies the prohibition of infringement of the right, not the right itself. Point #3 I have argued until I'm blue in the face.

As I just said, my 3 points in post #485 are fully supported by the text and are not contradicted in any way by it.

If you want to argue points #1 and #2--not #3; I am well and truly finished with that discussion--state what you think is wrong with it and how it is not supported by the amendment.

My claim, I repeat, is that you are not interested in the meaning of the 2nd amendment beyond checking whether it contradicts your belief.

See?

No, I don't want to argue any of those points, and I maintain that they are a complete red herring for this discussion. The same is true for #3. You can see my claim above; if you want to argue against it, explain why your previous responses on a full 17 pages ignore anything beyond that limited interest.

Yeah, captain X is a reliable and honest fellow. I saw the video, and I stand on my point. BTW even James Madison never thought all men had a right to arms because he did not want slaves, who are people, having guns. If all men should have guns, and they did allow free negros to own guns, it seems your own point man did not want certain people owning guns, which means he did support gun regulation and the militia line was meant to arm certain people so they would be above other people who were not allowed to own guns. Who were the men not allowed to own guns? They would be the slaves of course.

You have a very big problem when you are trying to make an argument of a universal right and relate it back to people who really did not recognize universal rights. You would really do better to scrap that old argument which is complete bullshit and easy to shoot down, and start to deal with something more modern and honest. The base of your argument has been shot full of holes by the very people who you constructed it on.

This is why we call you federal fuck up. It is because your arguments come from a bubble of whitewashed ignorance. Make your own reason and stop relying on the words of our country's creators. I like america and appreciate they were progressive for their time, but in comparison they were some downright ignorant racist cruel assholes whos beliefs have to be picked through to find the good parts.