|
Post by teancum79 on Jun 26, 2008 11:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 10, 2008 20:03:07 GMT -5
The issue is actually more complex than that; we covered it once in my language class. The problem, really, is that the writers of the bill of rights used a far more complex grammar than we do, often based on latin (in the defense of modern grammar, latin grammar applied to English doesn't often make sense, hence the problems). Let's examine the Second Amendment in that light: 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.Now, if we cut out the grammatically unnecessary (though not unmeaningful) bits, we are just left with "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the apparent interpretation of the amendment. However, the previous two structures complicate the meaning. The first ("A well regulated Militia") is a prefatory clause, in essence giving the pre-condition for the statement. This could be interpreted as saying that the only reason to keep and bear arms is for the purposes of a well regulated militia, which is contradictory with the common reasons for gun-ownership today. The second structure (for those who care, an prepositional phrase) effectively justifies the amendment. However, it is unclear what the phrase modifies: either "militia" or "right." If it modifies "right," then it is consistent with the "literalized" reading of the amendment, but if the phrase modifies "militia," it in fact supports the notion that the right to bear arms is only valid with reference to militias. According to modern standard of English grammar (which I believe applied reasonably well at that time, though I am not certain), a prepositional phrase, like an appositive (which it is arguable a subclass of, I suppose) is placed after the noun [phrase] it modifies, unless the noun begins the sentence, in which case the prepositional phrase may also precede the noun. According to that format, the phrase modifies "militia." However, as "militia" is part of a prefatory phrase, it may in fact be considered as "before" the sentence proper, in which case the prepositional phrase may modify "right." In other words, it's not nearly as simple as it seems at first, and yes, the Constitution really is picked apart like that. However, District of Columbia v. Heller potentially simplifies the "official" interpretation, which has not previously been ruled on very much at all. As I understand it, the ruling was, in effect, that self-defense is a valid reason to keep and bear arms, which is in direct contradiction with the strict interpretation that the only constitutional reason to keep and bear arms is for a militia. This ruling is thus a precedent against that interpretation; as the open interpretation of the amendment is the only other obvious reading, the ruling can furthermore be taken as in favor of that interpretation. I hope I've made this as clear as it can be, not that that's saying much, this being a terrible intersection between grammar and law.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 11, 2008 13:49:26 GMT -5
A point often ignored by both sides is that militias where basically a bunch of farmers who owned their own guns and acted to protect their freedoms (or revolt from England spending on your view).
The idea that a militia should only be comprised of people hand selected by the state way ahead of time and that they should not have use of their weapons shows a lack of historical understanding on the parts of many who support strict gun control.
Or as I am tending to believe of late many do understand history and they know that Americans won't give up a lot of their rights like speech and religion while they are well armed.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jul 12, 2008 6:31:28 GMT -5
Heh...
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 12, 2008 12:51:52 GMT -5
I believe the term "well regulated" is important. As I understand, the style of militia they were supporting (and, in fact, the style that fought the war) was groups of farmers, etc. who met and trained regularly with each other and kept their own weapons, and most importantly, who were not supposed to act independently (generally speaking--they might act independently to defend their own town, I imagine), but instead, when "activated," would become part of the forces of a designated general, acting as a sort of informal army reserve.
I find the idea of individually "defending" the rights to speech or religion vaguely frightening. The rights to speech and religion are, ultimately, group rights; the important aspect is not what you personally do, but how the group responds. Admittedly, those rights have been won in the past with arms, but only by groups; I think that the idea that individual armament could somehow protect these rights is a dangerous belief, and honestly more likely to put them in peril, as the real power behind these rights does not come from individual force, but from a group force (and thus attempting to use individual force to "defend" them would not work).
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 12, 2008 13:17:13 GMT -5
You are correct that one person alone being armed will have little impact on our rights. However when many individuals work together there is a lot of power. I'm not advocating gang or other questionable armed activity.
A population having armed citizens, aside from the crime deterrent which alone I think would justify allowing citizens to be armed, are a large force that can if need be force to government to play by the rules.
Bush can not cancel the up coming election not because the UN might restrict trade a little or because Russia might get upset, but because we the people will not accept him violating the constitution in that fashion. Odds are most presidents would agree to step down when their term is up, but if one was inclined to refuse we have the potential to remove them from office.
The more restrictions that are placed on citizen keeping arms the larger the gap grows between the army and the people. If the gap gets to large we lose the ability to force proper behavior from our officials and from that point on it is just luck that keeps us free.
As long as the government is in fear of the people we stay free when we as a people fear the government we are slaves.
people being armed comes at a price just like all other rights there is a price that a society pays for that freedom, but with the exception of the 1st amendment I don't think any other right is so needed to insure we and our children will live free.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 14, 2008 20:17:42 GMT -5
I understand your position, but I'm not sure that arms really protect freedom in the ways you describe. It's true that, historically, authoritarian rulers have banned arms to maintain control, but I think there are a number of modern places with tyrannical rule where guns are relatively easy to come by (just about anyplace you hear is experiencing "unrest," I would think).
That the lawful possession of guns reduces crimes is one of those debatable point. Obviously, no guns at all would engender far less crime, but I think if you just banned guns that, much like alcohol during the Prohibition, it would simply empower criminal elements, who would make a good living smuggling them (and then, of course, law-abiding citizens would really need guns). Catch-22, like a lot of things.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 15, 2008 9:26:40 GMT -5
No guns at all would be worth considering if such was possible, but it would require a world wide removal of the items from both civilian criminal and military hands. I think we will have a space colonies first (or Christ's return).
You are also correct that guns alone don't protect freedom. A gun much like a hammer or drill it is a tool. It better enables a person to take action. In many places where there is unrest there is not unity of the people to bring about peace. In many cases it is little better than gang leaders fighting for power. Here is the US we have a foundation of freedom that we are just trying to keep in place rather than trying to turn utter chaos into peace which is a whole lot harder.
|
|
|
Post by first on Mar 29, 2013 4:27:17 GMT -5
I just love your blog.Thanks for posting it.i have something that someone comeback again… Russian girls.there is a lot of useful information a person can get from here…I must say,well done...i visited it daily,what a colourful blog it is....colours attracted me a lot....i visited it daily,what a colourful blog it is.. prequalification ads.. a very decent and nice blog...i like it so very much...
|
|