Best 2nd Amendment Analogy and Pro Gun Argument ever written

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ru4real

Ru4real

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
1,608
Location
Utah
Start with:

A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books, shall not be infringed.*

---> Explain that reading and composing books are the tools needed to be a well educated electorate for preserving a free society. This is universally accepted, is an easy sell and conditions the Anti up for the finish.

Finish with:

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.

---> Explain that keeping and bearing arms are the tools needed to regulate the militia for securing a free state. People regulate the Army. People regulate the Police.

* Author unknown. Most of the above was taken from
https://thefederalist.com/2018/03/21/10-common-arguments-gun-control-debunked/
 
John_R said:
If we actually had a well-educated electorate, it might resonate better.

The anti gunners are the same people trying hard to uneducate the electorate. They are anti-education, when it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. And I won't give up.
 
Ru4real said:
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.

---> Explain that keeping and bearing arms are the tools needed to regulate the militia for securing a free state. People regulate the Army. People regulate the Police.
Click to expand...
Except that the Heller case disconnected the 2nd Amendment RKBA from anything having to do with the militia. According to Justice Scalia, the reference to the militia was just a meaningless "prefatory clause."

Ignoring Heller, "well regulated" in the original sense meant well equipped and disciplined, not "controlled" in the modern sense. An armed people don't "sanction" or "control" the militia, since "the people" and "the militia" are one and the same. Under the original Constitution, the militia is the rival force to the federal standing army, and is supposed to prevail in cases of conflict.

Your whole theory is 180 degrees wrong, no matter how you look at it -- either under the modern jurisprudence or under the 1791 originalist scheme.
 
AlexanderA,
What is my theory? What exactly is 180 degrees wrong?

You are in a hole now, looking up at the high ground. Lean on modern jurisprudence more and I think you will find the hole only gets deeper. Maybe you have blind faith in our current legal system (e.g. reason you stated modern jurisprudence). I could guess, but I will give you the benefit of doubt, for now.
 
Ru4real said:
What is my theory? What exactly is 180 degrees wrong?
Click to expand...
The first thing you have wrong is thinking that the militia was somehow separate from the people, and that an armed populace was a check against the militia. In truth, the militia was considered to be one and the same as "the people." (We have writings of the Founders to attest to this.) The armed populace (the militia) was considered to be a check against the standing army (acting under orders of would-be tyrants). The Founders had a bias against a standing army, and thought that the country could be adequately defended by the citizen militia, bolstered by a few regular troops, and a navy. (History has shown them to have been wrong on this.)

The interpretation that the 2nd Amendment is a check against the militia stands the Amendment exactly on its head. Its intent was to strengthen the militia (i.e., the people) versus usurpers using the standing army.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my view), the 2nd Amendment no longer has anything to do with the militia. Saying that it does is your second mistake. We have Justice Scalia, and the vaunted Heller case, to thank for that. According to Scalia, the 2nd Amendment describes an individual right (specifically, to keep a handgun in the home, for self defense) that is not dependent on membership in a militia. If he had taken the correct view (IMO) that membership in the militia is universal, and underpins the RKBA, our 2nd Amendment protections would be much broader than what we have today.

I suspect that Scalia simply didn't want to legalize military weapons for civilians. This is the rationale that is going to be used (and has in fact been used) to uphold "assault weapon" bans.
 
^That’s close to what I was typing out. I’ll join your opinion on the matter.
 
I find analogies where you have to set up an argument to prime someone never go well. What is they disagree? What if they see where you are going with it?

Having to "set the scene" for a comparison requires too many variables.

I really like Prager University's video on this topic.
 
JeffG said:
Where does it say militia? *mic drop.
Click to expand...
You're doing the same thing that Scalia did -- nullifying the militia clause. If you're satisfied with the 2nd Amendment protecting a handgun in the home, and nothing more, then I suppose that's OK.

The militia clause is important in laying the groundwork for the "operative clause" -- which is what you quoted -- and clarifying that "arms" mean militarily useful weapons. Otherwise, judges are going to say that "arms" are those in common use among civilians -- in other words, Fudd guns. They're going to sidestep the issue that AR-15's are widely distributed.
 
It says that the militia must be well regulated. It does not say that the right to keep and bear arms must be well regulated.

In the context of the time 2A was written, "well regulated" meant properly functioning or well managed. In pre-1900 documents, I found references to well regulated music, well regulated horses, well regulated hair, a well regulated telescope, well regulated minds, a well regulated fire department, well regulated schools (having a music department was a prerequisite to being well regulated), a well regulated parlor, well regulated minds, and well regulated persons. I even found one reference to a well regulated society that was in a state of rebellion against its government. You can substitute "properly functioning" or "well managed" in all of the citations, and they make sense. You cannot substitute "carefully controlled by the government".

About 1900, the meaning of the term shifted to be more aligned with "carefully controlled by the government".

The Heller decision permanently made clear that there is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms that is separate from any connection with the militia.
 
Ru4real said:
People regulate the Police.
Click to expand...

As far as the gun grabbers that I run into this would be the route to take if you really wanted to bring them 'round. Well that and explaining how it helps place women on a more equal playing field when it comes physical confrontations with men but the second argument doesn't work as well getting the point across regarding rifles in general.
 
I think the easiest way to define and defend "the militia equals the peoplec is this.....

Who met the British at Concord bridge.
It wasn't the army, as there was no "standing army" at the time.
IT WAS "THE PEOPLE".
Who was Paul Revere riding through the countryside calling "to arms, to arms, the British are coming"?
It was "THE PEOPLE".

The writers of the Constitution knew exactly what they meant, and wrote the second amendment to echo those thoughts.

The militia is the people.
 
AlexanderA said:
The first thing you have wrong is thinking that the militia was somehow separate from the people, and that an armed populace was a check against the militia. In truth, the militia was considered to be one and the same as "the people." (We have writings of the Founders to attest to this.) The armed populace (the militia) was considered to be a check against the standing army (acting under orders of would-be tyrants). The Founders had a bias against a standing army, and thought that the country could be adequately defended by the citizen militia, bolstered by a few regular troops, and a navy. (History has shown them to have been wrong on this.)

The interpretation that the 2nd Amendment is a check against the militia stands the Amendment exactly on its head. Its intent was to strengthen the militia (i.e., the people) versus usurpers using the standing army.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my view), the 2nd Amendment no longer has anything to do with the militia. Saying that it does is your second mistake. We have Justice Scalia, and the vaunted Heller case, to thank for that. According to Scalia, the 2nd Amendment describes an individual right (specifically, to keep a handgun in the home, for self defense) that is not dependent on membership in a militia. If he had taken the correct view (IMO) that membership in the militia is universal, and underpins the RKBA, our 2nd Amendment protections would be much broader than what we have today.

I suspect that Scalia simply didn't want to legalize military weapons for civilians. This is the rationale that is going to be used (and has in fact been used) to uphold "assault weapon" bans.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what I'm thinking. You only know what I've written. Let's keep the discussion to what we've written, not what you are imagining and dreaming up about me.

I posted an Analogy and the second amendment. And you took exception to what I wrote for reasons you imagined and made up. Are you fighting for the anti-cause? I'm asking because you aren't very clear in what you write.
 
JeeperCreeper said:
I find analogies where you have to set up an argument to prime someone never go well. What is they disagree? What if they see where you are going with it?

Having to "set the scene" for a comparison requires too many variables.

I really like Prager University's video on this topic.
Click to expand...

You are probably right that it can go sideways with an anolgy. But I think looking for common ground is necessary in good faith.
 
Earlier I wrote .... People regulate the Army. People regulate the Police.

And now I will add .... People are the Army. People are the Police. And we've done a pretty good job regulating ourselves.
 
denton said:
The Heller decision permanently made clear that there is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms that is separate from any connection with the militia.
Click to expand...
This is what disturbs me--that a single court decision (I don't care if it is the Supreme Court) can nullify one (or all just as easily) of the Rights set forth in the US Constitution.

That isn't checks and balance; it's check and checkmate for a lousy 9-person Ivy Leage committee who's grasp of the real world is even less than their supposed grasp of the Constitution.
 
Ru4real said:
You have no idea what I'm thinking. You only know what I've written. Let's keep the discussion to what we've written, not what you are imagining and dreaming up about me.
Click to expand...
I was going by what you wrote, namely this: "keeping and bearing arms are the tools needed to regulate the militia for securing a free state. People regulate the Army. People regulate the Police."

That sure sounds like you are saying that the RKBA is a check against the militia, not a means of strengthening the militia. Maybe I misunderstood, but you are not the first to say exactly that. There's an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, current in some pro-gun circles, that the militia cited in the Amendment is the same as the federally-recognized militia described in Article I, section 8 (relating to the powers of Congress)

"16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
​
and that therefore there needed to be some protection (for the people) against this militia as well as against the standing army. I believe this interpretation is totally erroneous. For purposes of the 2nd Amendment, "the militia" is synonymous with "the people."

Perhaps the misunderstanding is because it wasn't clear if you were using the word "regulate" in the 18th century sense, or in the modern sense.
 
This whole discussion of the Militia Clause (of the 2nd Amendment) is important -- nay, crucial -- because upon it hinges whether the RKBA protects machine guns -- and by extension, "assault weapons" -- as well as more prosaic weapons (aka Fudd guns). The antigunners just love the denigration of the Militia Clause, and Justice Scalia handed it to them on a silver platter.
 
The Analogy is simple. Students understand this Analogy.

Sure, arguable, as to its content and meaning, by us on a gun forum, or lawyers on a legal forum. But with students in high school, keep it simple. This Analogy works and is easily repeatable.
 
The problem is that we've had 5 generations--a century--of infringements at this point. And, we are left haggling over just how onerous and burdensome those infringements are to be.

Yes, I want fundamentalism, with all my heart.

However, how that will do anything about the 20-40k regulations currently in place, and the blizzard of proposed legislation remains unclear.

It would seem that we should be insisting upon seeing the results from previous legislation, before any new is proposed.
 
The problem is that we are dealing with people that do not believe in individual rights.

They see no problem with everything (speech, trial, searches, etc.) being decided by majority rule. They really lack the concept of what a right is.

It is very hard, if not impossible, to debate someone who has fundamentally different core principles.

Recall the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"


This essentially means:

"We believe in individual rights and it should be obvious to you too. If you do not believe in this, do not bother to read any further..."

These people do not believe that individual rights are obvious, nor that they exist at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Symantics of the Second Amendment - Opinions?
Replies
16
Views
685
MP5
M
G
  • Locked
BCM - pro-2nd Amendment announcement.
Replies
10
Views
1K
dmancornell
D
R
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Refresher Course
Replies
4
Views
556
Wachtelhund
W
grampajack
  • Locked
2nd Amendment: For the militia, or because of the militia?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
171
Views
7K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
T
  • Locked
RKBA Redux
Replies
6
Views
381
tgzzzz
T
Back
Top