Arms Then and Arms Now
- Thread starter ConstitutionCowboy
- Start date
- Status
woodcdi
Because I am unable to interpret it's meaning.
Interpreting ANY document (or any sentence, for that matter) is part of READING it. If you cannot interpret it, you cannot understand what it means. Are you claiming there is such a thing as reading a document WITHOUT interpreting its meaning?
I do not understand that sentence.
Because I am unable to interpret it's meaning.
Interpreting ANY document (or any sentence, for that matter) is part of READING it. If you cannot interpret it, you cannot understand what it means. Are you claiming there is such a thing as reading a document WITHOUT interpreting its meaning?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Glummer,
Certain things are written so plainly that there is only one meaning to that which is written. Example: "The dam just broke! Head for high ground!" No interpretation needed as this is understandable with its warning and intent. It is as simple as, "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."
Some things are written in such convoluted fashion that several meanings can conceivably be drawn. Such things are open to interpretation, and usually written that way on purpose. Example:
Woody
Certain things are written so plainly that there is only one meaning to that which is written. Example: "The dam just broke! Head for high ground!" No interpretation needed as this is understandable with its warning and intent. It is as simple as, "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."
Some things are written in such convoluted fashion that several meanings can conceivably be drawn. Such things are open to interpretation, and usually written that way on purpose. Example:
Woody
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Oops! I forgot to add that the Constitution is written in such a plain fashion and clear context, that to derive something other than what was written, that which was written must be interpreted in a different fashion or taken out of context.
Woody
Woody
HonorsDaddy
Member
woodcdi
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are written in plain language, not legalease. As the people who wrote it were educated and quite capable of linguistic obfuscation, there is no reason to believe this plain language was anything but intentional.
The 2nd Amendment is parsed and perverted from its original intent, not because it is vague (it isn't), but because it is so clear; and so many people do not want that clear plain affirmation of an individual right to exist.
When one must refer to obscure turns of phrase, tertiary word meanings, the words of someone dead 300 years before the writing of the 2nd Amendment, one quote in a private letter from one of the founders, or any of a host of bizarre justifications for their assertion that the 2nd Amendment protects only the government right to arm the militia, it should be obvious to all but the most ideologically blind that an attempt is being made to make the words mean something they do not.
Ask an English professor or even a child with a strong grasp of the language what the 2nd Amendment means and you'll get the same answer: that the individual right to be armed shall not be infringed, the bit about the militia is there simply to provide one of the multitude of reasons why.
Ask a modern attorney with a superiority complex who cannot abide by the idea that the great unwashed are legally protected in their right to be armed, and somehow those clear 27 words mean the government has the right to arm the military.
Guess who I'm more likely to believe?
If you need further support to my opinion, on this very thread, on a pro-gun forum, we're discussing the meaning of the word "arms" for pete's sake! Why are we doing this? Simple - to give some shyster somewhere some kind of argument as to why this weapon or another should be restricted from private hands.
Now it may sound as if I don't like lawyers so allow me to clarify. I have nothing against attorneys UNTIL they practice the deception of word-smithing. When plain English becomes twisted back upon itself until it is claimed to mean the opposite of what it obviously does, then we end up with things meaning nothing.
To me, the question is simple: What does the 2nd Amendment most likely mean? Is it more likely that the 2nd Amendment restricts government and protects an individual right - as do the other amendments, or is it more likely that somehow in the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is the sole clause in which a state power is granted?
I think we all know the answer to that, some of us simply don't want to accept it.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, are written in plain language, not legalease. As the people who wrote it were educated and quite capable of linguistic obfuscation, there is no reason to believe this plain language was anything but intentional.
The 2nd Amendment is parsed and perverted from its original intent, not because it is vague (it isn't), but because it is so clear; and so many people do not want that clear plain affirmation of an individual right to exist.
When one must refer to obscure turns of phrase, tertiary word meanings, the words of someone dead 300 years before the writing of the 2nd Amendment, one quote in a private letter from one of the founders, or any of a host of bizarre justifications for their assertion that the 2nd Amendment protects only the government right to arm the militia, it should be obvious to all but the most ideologically blind that an attempt is being made to make the words mean something they do not.
Ask an English professor or even a child with a strong grasp of the language what the 2nd Amendment means and you'll get the same answer: that the individual right to be armed shall not be infringed, the bit about the militia is there simply to provide one of the multitude of reasons why.
Ask a modern attorney with a superiority complex who cannot abide by the idea that the great unwashed are legally protected in their right to be armed, and somehow those clear 27 words mean the government has the right to arm the military.
Guess who I'm more likely to believe?
If you need further support to my opinion, on this very thread, on a pro-gun forum, we're discussing the meaning of the word "arms" for pete's sake! Why are we doing this? Simple - to give some shyster somewhere some kind of argument as to why this weapon or another should be restricted from private hands.
Now it may sound as if I don't like lawyers so allow me to clarify. I have nothing against attorneys UNTIL they practice the deception of word-smithing. When plain English becomes twisted back upon itself until it is claimed to mean the opposite of what it obviously does, then we end up with things meaning nothing.
To me, the question is simple: What does the 2nd Amendment most likely mean? Is it more likely that the 2nd Amendment restricts government and protects an individual right - as do the other amendments, or is it more likely that somehow in the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is the sole clause in which a state power is granted?
I think we all know the answer to that, some of us simply don't want to accept it.
HonorsDaddy
Member
glummer
It COULD be, but is it likely that a semi-literate Mexican farm hand is going to use such an archaic term as "dam"?
Of course not, and you know it.
That being said, consider then the context of the 2nd Amendment and who was saying it.
It COULD be, but is it likely that a semi-literate Mexican farm hand is going to use such an archaic term as "dam"?
Of course not, and you know it.
That being said, consider then the context of the 2nd Amendment and who was saying it.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
To suggest that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to bear WMD's *is* to take it out of context. The context regards the limiting of federal government ... the security of free government ... that a standing army is a danger and that militia is better ... that any military power must be subordinate to the civil power ... a person has to take it out of context to read it to regard a right to personal WMD's.
Perhaps a good example is the term "all men are created equal", which people take out of context and construe to be a declaration of racial equality and gender equality, when there was no such intent behind the declaration, and in its proper context, it is a denouncement of monarchy.
Or the way the Preamble begins "We the People of the United States", which might imply that the US is empowered by the people as if by a popular vote, but it you can put in into the proper context, it means that the US is empowered by the people as States.
Perhaps a good example is the term "all men are created equal", which people take out of context and construe to be a declaration of racial equality and gender equality, when there was no such intent behind the declaration, and in its proper context, it is a denouncement of monarchy.
Or the way the Preamble begins "We the People of the United States", which might imply that the US is empowered by the people as if by a popular vote, but it you can put in into the proper context, it means that the US is empowered by the people as States.
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
... and the name of the mare is "High Ground"...
Agreed, the very act of reading a passage necessarily requires that you interpret that passage. The very fact that his thread exists is testimony to the fact that reasonable minds can differ as to the meaning (of course you could claim that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is an unreasonable SOB, I suppose... but that would make you an unreasonable SOB
)In our system the ultimate arbiter on what the Constitution means is SCOTUS. It is not you, it is not me and thank God it is not Sarah Brady. The remedy, if you are unsatisfied with a decision by SCOTUS, is found in Article V.
That is the context of the (subordinate and not legally compelling) Militia clause. It is not obvious that it is the context of the operative and legally paramount RKBA clause.
There is nothing in the RKBA to suggest some arms were covered while others were not. Even assuming that WMD possession is totally unacceptable, it is still possible that the Authors simply erred in not thinking about an upper limit on weaponry. There was, after all, nothing comparable in existence at the time. They were great, but not perfect.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
glummer said:
I think they were perfect. They included a method to amend the Constitution as times changed - that Article V we've seen noted here a few times.
As for that horse giving berth, just stand back and let nature take it's course!
Woody
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I think it is the context of the States' requests for the amendment, such as Virginia's:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power."
The idea that every person has a right to his own military power seems completely contrary to the idea that the military must be subordinate to the civil power. If a person knew nothing about the Second Amendment and had no sense of government, and just took the one sentence and applied the rules of grammar, he might conclude that every person has a right to nukes, but that is because he is unable to put the amendment into its proper context.
Cosmoline
Member
No. Interpreting the Constitution, or any law, is the only way to make it function. I've been over this with you dozens of times, but you seem to be determined to confuse simple interpretation with judicial activism. Interpretation is essential any time a court is faced with a particular set of facts.
--A says in public that B is a rat who stole his own grandmother's savings account. Is that defamation, or is it protected expression under the First?
--O hears someone laughing, smells incense and kicks down A's door. O finds A smoking pot and arrests him. Was the entry legal under the Constitution?
--President signs an executive order instructing the legislature of Alaska to sign off on a new law mandating civil defense measures. Constitutional?
--Alaska puts a head tax on every entering tourist. Constitutional?
--Oregon puts a tax on all incoming produce from California. Constitutional?
--Federal agency passes rules restricting the use of curse words on television. Constitutional?
To answer these or a million other fact patterns, you must interpret the Constitution. You yourself are interpreting the Constitution in this thread by deciding that the Second protects anything that can be defined as a weapon.
That's a very broad interpretation, but contrary to your faith it is not the only one.
True enough, but what I'm trying to explain is that an expansive reading of "arms" actually SUPPORTS the twisted group rights interpretation of the Second. "Arms" must be read in context or it becomes letters on a page.
Just had a thought
At the time the 2A was written, were there ANY arms of any kind that would NOT be useful to the Militia?
That is, did not "Militia arms", at that time, potentially include ALL known forms of weaponry?
And would not 'arms' in the 2A, even with the 'Militia clause' confusion, then cover all known weaponry?
At the time the 2A was written, were there ANY arms of any kind that would NOT be useful to the Militia?
That is, did not "Militia arms", at that time, potentially include ALL known forms of weaponry?
And would not 'arms' in the 2A, even with the 'Militia clause' confusion, then cover all known weaponry?
More thought.
If the Authors of the 2A, assuming they were only concerned with the Militia, intended a limited definition of ‘arms’, that limit must have existed (at least in their minds) at the time.
What was it?
What ‘arms’ would Madison, or Henry, or Coxe, or Adams have PROHIBITED to the Militia?
Those who claim that all arms are not covered ....
Name 2 such weapons.
OK. Name ONE.
If the Authors of the 2A, assuming they were only concerned with the Militia, intended a limited definition of ‘arms’, that limit must have existed (at least in their minds) at the time.
What was it?
What ‘arms’ would Madison, or Henry, or Coxe, or Adams have PROHIBITED to the Militia?
Those who claim that all arms are not covered ....
Name 2 such weapons.
OK. Name ONE.
Cosmoline
Member
Any weapon system that a single person cannot keep, move and operate by himself. Because otherwise the Second is about arming militias--a notion I strongly disagree with.
HonorsDaddy
Member
Cosmoline
That perspective ignores the historical fact of privately owned cannon and warships.
The inclusion of the bit about letters of marque and reprisal further indicates that private citizens were fully expected to own more than just personal weapons.
That perspective ignores the historical fact of privately owned cannon and warships.
The inclusion of the bit about letters of marque and reprisal further indicates that private citizens were fully expected to own more than just personal weapons.
Cosmoline
Member
I don't know of any cannon or warships that were serviced, kept or even moved without a crew. The Second surely was not put into effect to ensure the right of merchants on the high seas to have cannons for protection.
The real issue is this. Was the Second enacted to protect the right of states or groups of citizens to form armed militias, or was it enacted to protect the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear the sort of arms individuals might keep and bear?
HonorsDaddy
Member
Cosmo...
Perhaps I misunderstood this:
It appears you are implying that anything not able to be managed by a single individual is not protected or allowed for private ownership. If that was not the case, my apologies.
Perhaps I misunderstood this:
It appears you are implying that anything not able to be managed by a single individual is not protected or allowed for private ownership. If that was not the case, my apologies.
gc70
Member
Everyone does not share your opinion of the dividing line between a personal right and a group right.
The Second Amendment unequivocally protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. But are nuclear, biological, and chemical devices "arms" or something else? If NBC devices are something other than arms, we no longer need to try to find an arbitrary dividing line that does not exist in the Second Amendment.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Cosmoline said:
interpret vt to explain; to translate; to construe; to give one's own conception of, as in a play or musical composition.
The Constitution needs no explaining; translation; construing; or anyone's conception other than that of the Founding Father's. It's the same no matter how you act it out or the tune you sing it to.
Cosmoline said:
Congress has the power to form militias, and so do the several states when awaiting on Congress in an emergency will not admit of delay. That's covered in Article I. All that is left is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
gc70 said:
There is no doubt that arms are weapons. Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are, therefore, arms. These things can kill when used to do so. One can use Drano to kill someone. One can spread a lethal disease such as the HIV. (Try locking up everyone with AIDS or infected with the HIV! Try denying anyone who has contracted this virus and disease access to it!) How about fire? Try denying access to fire that can, of course, be a very effective weapon. One can conceivably corner the market on fissile materials before it becomes weaponized and avoid any constitutional issues, but that still would not place nuclear weapons beyond the scope of the prohibition in the Second Amendment to infringe upon the right to them.
Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.
Woody
This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as a legislative branch of government, or as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood
Cosmoline, would you agree or disagree with the following?
The 2nd states that individuals can own, operate, keep, carry, etc., any one-man arms. As nothing further in the Constitution or BOR states that anything larger is disallowed, anyone may also own, operate, keep, transport, etc., crew-served weaponry. Cannons and the like just happen to not be spelled out as no-restriction items whatsoever.
Of course, "reasonable restriction" to me means when the company/clerk/invoice states a total bill due. Can't pay? Can't own.
The 2nd states that individuals can own, operate, keep, carry, etc., any one-man arms. As nothing further in the Constitution or BOR states that anything larger is disallowed, anyone may also own, operate, keep, transport, etc., crew-served weaponry. Cannons and the like just happen to not be spelled out as no-restriction items whatsoever.
Of course, "reasonable restriction" to me means when the company/clerk/invoice states a total bill due. Can't pay? Can't own.
wjustinen
Member
The above quoted / suggested personal right depends in large part on whether WMDs (note the absence of the apostrophe) qualify as below:
If WMDs are necessary "to maintain a status of independence" then they are covered. However, given the atitude that FAs, anti-tank, anti-aircraft and other arms of their ilk are not covered; it appears that the WMD is a red-herring designed to muddy the waters.
- Status
