The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
libs: if 2nd amendment is for "militia" why do "people" have the right
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:41 PM Author: floppy violent voyeur potus 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.
Congress could've written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. |
 |
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:42 PM Author: Learning disabled genital piercing step-uncle's house funny how ppl in the 18th century wrote like retarded boomers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704487) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:49 PM Author: Glassy bossy codepig this, i mean holy fuckstack is the second amendment written like an ESL boomer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705679) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:50 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business Let's worship their work product as though it were handed down from god though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705692) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:53 PM Author: Diverse orange meetinghouse i've long thought this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705762) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:07 PM Author: costumed multi-colored ladyboy what's the alternative? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705904) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:09 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business New Zealand doesn't have a constitution. Let's ask them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705933) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:39 PM Author: Glassy bossy codepig britain's constitution is some vague amorphous blob of buggery (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706174) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:37 PM Author: provocative pea-brained property Please tell me that they either defined the capitalized terms "militia", "state" and "arms" before they're introduced in this sentence or there's a definition section in the Constitution. If not the biglaw part of me is going to have an OCD meltdown. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706165) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:40 PM Author: Glassy bossy codepig they're capitalized bc they're nouns and English is a Germanic language that used to capitalize nouns i think (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706180) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:23 AM Author: Ruby rough-skinned house ratface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706432) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:28 AM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707787) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:27 AM Author: Sadistic Vengeful Mediation Institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707782) |
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:44 PM Author: Thirsty Slate Kitty State Doesn't matter what the first phrase says, could be: 'NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:48 PM Author: Dull stead i'm glad you don't like me. you're an idiot correct on this point, however are there any arguments where the right uses a prefatory clause to support its position? it's not a horrible argument, but there is a reason we don't see inter alia everywhere |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:46 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria Why don't any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights have a prefatory clause? Odd case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704513) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:49 PM Author: Dull stead so you believe the right is not an individual right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704536) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:53 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria I think it's dumb to try and parse the words of the amendment hoping to divine what the "Framers" thought. But I see no principled way for a textualist to write off the 2A's prefatory clause. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704569) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:58 PM Author: Dull stead did prefatory clauses represent the only reason for operative clauses at the time the constitution was drafted? i don't know, but i assume not since i've never heard that argued. i do think the argument for 'people' meaning all citizens makes more sense from a logical and textualist perspective i do think that all of the other bill of rights being for individual citizens means the 2a is also for individual citizens makes more sense but, as i said above, i don't think the prefatory argument is baseless |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:06 PM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs It's not the case all the other BoR are for people. E.g., the First Amendment constrains "Congress," the Tenth relates to the interplay between the federal government and the states, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704660) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:46 PM Author: Dull stead but both also give people rights (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705651) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:28 AM Author: Sadistic Vengeful Mediation Institution that's a different argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707786) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:52 PM Author: floppy violent voyeur potus The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704559) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:07 PM Author: Seedy multi-billionaire "[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'"
Lewis v. U.S. (1980), citing U.S. v. Miller (1939), both of which remain good law. Scalia thinks this is dicta because it was in a footnote, which is ridiculous hypocritical bullshit coming from Scalia |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:39 AM Author: Greedy Preventive Strike Good law?
This was the question presented in Heller:
Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:44 AM Author: floppy violent voyeur potus even if that is still good law; it doesn't say there's no right, it qualifies the right by saying that the right to keep and bear a firearm requires the firearm to have some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707884) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:48 AM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs Can you give reporter cites plz.? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707919) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:00 PM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs Look at the tense and the object. It's legitimate to have a debate about the scope of the "right" that must not be "infringed," but the prefatory clause argument is some real 172 LSAT ACS at HLS idiocy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704621) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:29 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria You're missing the point. The problem isn't one of sentence construction. It's that of all the rights in the Bill of Rights, the Framers chose to identify the purpose of only one of those rights--the right to bear arms. A normal person would take this to mean that the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment must bear a close connection to that stated purpose. The question then becomes whether a given firearm regulation unduly frustrates the amendment's stated purpose--maintaining a well-regulated militia. It's not clear how prohibiting private ownership of certain types of firearms like handguns frustrates that purpose. Heller's flaw was that it said the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to self defense. That's not in the text of the amendment at all, though. If Scalia wanted to reach that result, he should have grounded it in the 5th/14th amendment or the 9th.
|
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:33 PM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs Except that's not how an ordinary reader would have interpreted prefatory clauses at that time, and in any event mandatory interpretative rules have never been held to override the operative right in any context. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704922) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:42 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria This logic is why no one takes originalists seriously. If they can't get the result they want via the original meaning of the words actually used, they just retreat up a level and say, "well, here's a meta-rule that the people alive at the time would have applied, and that meta-rule just so happens to support the result I wanted in the first place." If that fails, they just continue the process until they get the outcome they want. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704995) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:51 PM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs Nonsense. You proposed a metarule based on how you say someone would read the prefatory clause today. I gave a two tiered response: (i) you have the wrong interpretative frame, since you interpret a text based on how it would be understood by contemporaries (mod oddities like express delegations); and, (ii) in any event, you are simply wrong that, in any scheme, past or present, a statement as to purpose etc. would override the operative text of a piece of legal text.
It is in fact you who have the problem of being unable to hang on to one level of generality. You have no principle; originalists at least have the social fiction that there was a supermajority that bound future generations through valid process, or a bill that made it through bicameralism and presentment.
Feel free, in short, to make your arguments; just do not call your enterprise "law." |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:24 AM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs Plz respond ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707774) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:34 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena No right to self-defense! Harris 2020! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704925) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:37 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria If the right to self-defense is part of the Second Amendment, then you have no constitutional right to defend yourself with your bare hands. This is what happens when you have someone throwing Ragu on a page instead of thinking the issues through. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704951) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:44 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena None of that matters. We have commonly interpreted the 2A that sane adults can own guns for 200+ years of almost all kinds. The debate is over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705014) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:50 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria When you're on the losing side of an argument, just make a false claim without any proof and declare the debate over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705055) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:52 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena I have to prove to you citizens have owned guns for 200 years and there are 300MM guns in private hands in the US? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705075) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:44 PM Author: self-absorbed electric furnace Yeah man, no rights whatsoever beyond those specifically listed in the bor. Nope, none at all. If only the framers had anticipated this brain dead argument and crafted part of the bor to address it... odd case that they failed to do so (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705016) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:52 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria Exactly. These shitheads really think there's no constitutional right to self-defense. Of course there is: the courts should recognize it under the 5th and 14th amendments or under the 9th. They shouldn't do it dishonestly via the 2nd Amendment though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705078) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:56 PM Author: self-absorbed electric furnace Heller recognized a right to self defense in the 2A, it didn’t limit it to such. Stop being such an intentional tard. Fuck it, the thread is yours, I still have 3 cases of ammo to reload tonight (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705113) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:42 PM Author: Flirting faggotry But the 2nd amendment literally says you have the right to bear arms. What are hands attached to? That's right, arms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705620) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:41 PM Author: self-absorbed electric furnace At no time in the history of the English language would a normal, literate, and unbiased person adopt your view. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704985) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:48 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria You're a moron.
" In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption."
I'm sure you'll just call anyone who disagrees with your personal biases "biased" or "illiterate" but that just proves that you have no genuine argument to make. You're just like a pro se litigant: when all else fails just claim there's a conspiracy against you. |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:50 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena Good thing the AR-15 has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705049) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:30 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business Oh noes, a gun owner is taking tough on the internet boys. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705488) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:51 PM Author: self-absorbed electric furnace Lmao I am not gonna get into a shitty flame war. You lost this issue, shitlib. We’re keeping our guns and there ain’t shit that you or Nancy Pelosi can do about it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705060) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:56 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena Preach it brother!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705123) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:28 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria Liberals and Nancy Pelosi aren't a threat to ordinary people owning guns in this country. They're ineffective on everything and don't even have the will to take away people's guns.
The corporate state is the real threat. Think about laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. As soon as ordinary people start trying to actually change the system that's screwed them over for so long, the corporate state will really bring the hammer down hard on people across the board. They'll prohibit almost anyone from legally possessing a gun, all while keeping the 2A "technically" on the books. The Second Amendment's paper guarantee will be of no use when the cops start sending armored robots or drones in to confiscate guns. |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:54 PM Author: disgusting jade library stock car The even worse argument is the constant "well, the founders made this when we had muskets only!!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704572) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:04 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena It is clear they intended the people to have weapons that could repel their government. That means, at minimum, they would be ok with people having ASSAULT RIFLES in modern America. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704649) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:06 PM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs Nukes, actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704664) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:20 PM Author: disgusting jade library stock car More defensible argument than muskets only. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704770) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:36 PM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs I'm being serious. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704947) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:31 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business Why would they want people to be able to destroy the government they were creating? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705501) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:56 PM Author: disgusting jade library stock car Were you homeschooled by parents who are revolution deniers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705791) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:02 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business Didn't realize it was such a tough question. Sorry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705845) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:59 PM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena Just because good men ran the government in 1789 doesn’t mean someday we wouldn’t elect a Marxist Kenyan Muslim to destroy all that is good in America. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705810) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:00 PM Author: Walnut Irradiated Lay Keepsake Machete Why didn't gun owners do anything about that guy? A few of them tried to take over that park in Oregon but that ended fast after the feds fuckstarted one of them and killed him to death. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705831) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:03 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business It seems their plan to prevent such an occurrence failed. Twice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705857) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:56 PM Author: Hot Fiercely-loyal School Cafeteria (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706272) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:29 AM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena Jesus I’m trolling you fucks about Obama. Since you think DRUMPF is literally Hitler you should be glad we have the 2A. Hilarious that you eagerly admit Obama is a Marxist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707791) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2018 3:19 PM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business Why bother having a second amendment if you're too much of a pussy to use it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35726038) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:24 AM Author: hairraiser idea he suggested (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708161) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 10:52 PM Author: Thriller faggot firefighter This is what libs get for incorporating the BoR against the states to reach their desired policy outcomes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705746) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:05 PM Author: costumed multi-colored ladyboy Also, I'd like to point out that the Constitution writers had no fucking clue when to use a comma.
Setting aside the second amendment, just look at these monstrosities:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:44 PM Author: Glassy bossy codepig not just them, but the authors of the 26th amendment, too, which yields a fucking lulzy result where US citizenship is premised entirely on age
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Notice the non-restrictivity of that "who are 18yo or older" clause. It defines "citizens of the United States" as people 18+ yo. |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:46 AM Author: Greedy Preventive Strike WTF? We weren't animals then. Who let that slip? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706502) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:45 PM Author: cruel-hearted nudist pervert Can't anyone, at any time, any where in the U.S. declare themselves a militia? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706218) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:53 PM Author: Seedy multi-billionaire you tell us, "Texas Lawmaker" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706254) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:54 PM Author: brindle hissy fit cruise ship I don't get this lib argument. so owning guns is only okay if you are down to create your own paramilitary force? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706259) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:03 AM Author: cruel-hearted nudist pervert It just seems so silly. Like, if libs are so hung up on only militias having guns as a way of confiscating weapons, what's to stop random joe from declaring himself a militia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706333) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:06 AM Author: brindle hissy fit cruise ship if there were a lot of paramilitary forces (that would be 180) libs would want to limit gun ownership to only individuals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706348) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:29 AM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business Not sure that's the lib argument but thank. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706455) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:47 AM Author: Razzmatazz Impertinent Blood Rage Like all amendments, you just pick the outcome you want and then come up with the support for it after the fact. You can decide the prefatory clause matters or not.
I don't see a lot of value in trying to discern the original intent of the founders hundreds of years on. For example, I don't see why the language of the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend to shit like RPGs if you buy the founders thought people should have an unfettered right to weaponry.
It's all fraud lies.
|
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:29 AM Author: hairraiser idea he suggested Soooo Cr. Getting into the weeds about this stuff is really a law student/service partner mindset. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708213) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:31 AM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs The point isn't to discern the intent of the founders, it's to uncover what the relevant linguistic community would have understood the words to mean at the time of the amendment's enactment. This is an empirical question, though not approached empirically for obvious reasons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708227) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:40 AM Author: hairraiser idea he suggested That’s not a meaningful distinction. Pretty pedantic. His point is that constitutional interpretation is 100% political. Both sides of almost any issue can be supported with various pieces of text and different modes of interpretation. If it isn’t political it’s 100% politicized by choosing which interpretation to take. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708301) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2018 9:49 PM Author: Razzmatazz Impertinent Blood Rage Correct.
It's a framework for us to work with and a general enshrinement of the idea that government should be limited and accountable in various respects. It's a free-for-all after that. |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:53 AM Author: crusty maize lodge Everyone had guns during the signing, so given there is any sort of ambiguity, that's a prima facie constitutional argument that we are all supposed to be able to have guns. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706513) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:47 AM Author: bateful light church But they also had militias at the time. I believe there was even a federal law (Militia Act) soon after adoption of the Constitution that required adult men to own a rifle. The question discussed above is whether the first clause limits the right to the maintenance of a militia. If it does, then there's a question of what a militia is etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707911) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:51 AM Author: Amber Exciting Factory Reset Button Libs would interpret militia to be state national guard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707934) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:03 AM Author: bateful light church Agreed. Though there is quite a bit of scholarship showing that "militia" in those times meant a lot more than "irregular army". It's another front in the 2nd am interpretation battle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708004) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:06 AM Author: Bat shit crazy flickering den jap Had militias? Yes. Were members of militias? Not necessarily. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708018) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:32 AM Author: Elite adventurous office striped hyena We still have militias. U seem dumb.
https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=h250
https://www.ncgunblog.com/2011/06/28/nc-governor-signs-militia-law/
|
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 9:49 AM Author: Amber Exciting Factory Reset Button Couldn’t someone just form a militia then anyways? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707927) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:01 AM Author: bateful light church To answer OP's question, I'd argue that it's because militias weren't necessarily precise, identifiable, long-lasting entities that you could easily assign a right to. In those times, a "militia" might be called if a robber was on the loose in a county. The "militia" wasn't necessarily a formal organization but just a bunch of local guys with rifles getting together to handle a situation that the local government (often lacking formal police or enforcement) couldn't.
This actually still helps the conservative interpretation. Even if you argue, as liberals do, that the introductory clause limits the right to those situations where a militia is needed, one could still argue that the framer's intended a broad definition of "militia" that means a lot more than some irregular army fighting an invasion or the government. |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:05 AM Author: fluffy orchestra pit hairy legs CR
The founders were enamored of republican Rome, where you called up citizen farmers for a jus belli, and they brought their own weapons. |
|
Date: March 29th, 2018 8:26 PM Author: floppy violent voyeur potus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35720304) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:04 AM Author: clear marvelous death wish Tell me why we can't have Tanks ffs. And why can't gatormo have an attack helicopter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708010) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:28 AM Author: curious duck-like halford mood (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708198) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 11:02 AM Author: peach bat-shit-crazy place of business http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35708476) |
|
Date: March 30th, 2018 8:49 PM Author: Thriller faggot firefighter State your IQ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35728109) |