runsforcelery wrote:If it were that cut-and-dried the issue would not have arisen.
Ah but then we are back into the realm of what´s legal vs what´s reality, same as what the thread is about.
Legally, if you don´t have an axe to grind, it is "cut-and-dried", but since the thing got infected with with both sides trying to force it to the extreme, well lawyering counts for far too much in USA in my opinion.
runsforcelery wrote:If "the people" are, indeed, simply the organized militia(s) of the United States
Most likely it refers to "we the people", ie the
collective population of the nation.
Ie, the "people" as a whole has the right to arms ( in opposition to the restrictions that existed under British rule, which is why the amendment happened at all, as it retroactively legalises the war of indepence ), rather than individuals.
In context, this effectively means the stated "organised militias".
runsforcelery wrote:Unfortunately for this interpretation in modern terms, the Civil War pretty clearly showed that it didn't work (from the South's perspective) and the Federal government's willingness (and ability) to federalize the national guard --- as Eisenhower did in Arkansas in 1954 --- sort of erases the
rganized militia"/national guard as a deterrent (for good or ill) on Federal authority/overreach (definitions of which are which will vary).
Yes, but that doesn´t change the meaning of the original amendment. As that is the very thing, USA wants to stay with the "original intent"(or at least claims so, usually as long as the current interpretation suits them personally).
runsforcelery wrote:If the original notion that the militia was to provide the deterrent to federal tyranny
It´s to guarantee a "free state" as in free nation, not under the opressive imperial yoke of the British(or anyone else).
runsforcelery wrote:but it's clear from their correspondence that they were most concerned about the potential for "tyranny" (a word they used a lot) of a central government with a monopoly on armed force. Arguments can certainly be made for abandoning the "deterrent to tyranny" argument entirely; arguments can also be made against abandoning it, however.
If the supposed meaning was for state militias to serve as a guarantor against that "tyranny", then the wording is exceedingly strange.
"being necessary to the
securityof a free State", that clearly tells you that it is not a matter of opposing central government tyranny.
Otherwise even just cutting part of that would have been better, "being necessary to a free State". Also, singular free state would probably not be used, ""being necessary to the freedom of the states" or something in that direction would be more likely if protection against central govt was the primary reason.
runsforcelery wrote:Moving beyond the notion of restraining the federal government, however, brings us to the "arms for self defense" argument which was an explicit part of the Bill of Rights of 1869 and (in my opinion; others may vary) clearly implicit in the 2nd Amendment.
Sorry but no way. 2nd does not include that in any way or form, or even a hint.
runsforcelery wrote:Which brings us to what "shall not be infringed" means. Does it mean shall be absolutely unrestricted, in which case I can park a nuke in the basement and carry Sarin gas in my car? Does it mean only small arms, or are crew-served weapons covered, as well? Does it allow the government to theoretically allow its citizens to be armed while hedging the weapons with which they may be armed with so many restrictions as to make them effectively useless?
And here is yet another clear hint what the 2nd is about. The British tried to enforce arms restrictions on what became USA, in part to keep it from rebelling (that worked really great didn´t it...), so this is a big reminder to not let anything like that happen again.
"Shall no be infringed" can only mean
zero restrictions. Anything else DO infringe.
Which is one more BIG hint that it´s not talking about individual rights to carry personal weapons or having anything to do with personal defense.
runsforcelery wrote:then the "right of the people" to be armed in self-defense becomes the focal point of the debate.
Except the 2nd does not say that unless you cut parts out of context.
runsforcelery wrote:I tend to come down on the side of the Framers' intention having been, first, to prevent a federal monopoly on force
That is a wishful hallucination without real value. The US military structure is very hierarchical, very top down and strictly controlled, and there have been a number of times when the central govt has used military force in questionable ways inside USA, no local forces have ever had any ability, or even "will"(ie rejecting the legality of orders) to deny this monopoly.
And the common idea that individual weapons in any way prevents it, well i don´t expect you to be among that crowd, as that is just silly.
Also, compare between nations that HAVE rejected tyranny of a central govt, what the militaries have done or not, and what system they used, how much they were "professional" and conscript armies...
runsforcelery wrote:In any case, the interpretation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as your summation suggests and the argument in question has been going on for over 300 years now.
De jure, it is. De facto? De facto, the gunlobby in USA have lots of cash and are willing to buy as much lawyering power as they need.
Do note that i personally have nothing what so ever against individual ownership of firearms. Responsible ownership.
And although i might wish for slightly looser gunlaws here, i will much rather keep what we have now, than USAs mess.
I can still own 20 rifles or 10 pistols before needing a collectors permit here, and who NEEDS more?
And for selfdefense? A year or two of martial arts is far more useful than a gun in your pocket.
Because "you can´t dodge a bullet", that is very true, but what is usually skipped past is the fact that you CAN dodge the AIM of the one who shoots.
runsforcelery wrote:I don't expect it to end tomorrow.
Meh, you sensible folks should just come up with a decent "middle of the road" law and be done with it.