Moderator: Community Team
Bruceswar Ā» Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.[8]
The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Bruceswar Ā» Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
KoolBak wrote:Seems to me the National Guard or reservists both fulfill this "requirement".
miĀ·liĀ·tia [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Symmetry wrote:Definition 4 is why you don't trust dictionary.com to provide definitions of words.
Funkyterrance wrote:Symmetry wrote:Definition 4 is why you don't trust dictionary.com to provide definitions of words.
Symmetry, I mean this in the nicest way but counting on wikipedia for information is just as bad as trusting dictionary.com to provide definitions of words.
As far as the wording of the original document I feel like it was referring to citizens having weapons in the event that a foreign invader were infiltrating the countryside, etc.. I don't believe the writers had defending against fellow citizens in mind. However, I don't think they would have ever considered taking firearms away from private citizens back then as many people used them to provide food for themselves(hunting). If there was a crime problem back then as there is now I think there would just be an increased incidence of hangings and everyone left would be able to continue using their guns.
Funkyterrance wrote:I would say the one passed by congress if I had to choose.
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
Symmetry wrote:KoolBak wrote:Seems to me the National Guard or reservists both fulfill this "requirement".
miĀ·liĀ·tia [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
Definition 4 is why you don't trust dictionary.com to provide definitions of words.
Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it is now clear that the Second Amendment is, since 2008, an individual and collective right.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.
I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.
In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.
I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.
Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it is now clear that the Second Amendment is, since 2008, an individual and collective right.
An interpretation, and one that split the court.
thegreekdog wrote:Okay, let's go through this in more detail.
From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Okay, let's go through this in more detail.
From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.
You and I disagree. I think the case law and the arguments around the 2nd amendment are due to the 2nd amendment being ambiguous. There are grounds for multiple interpretations. I'm not sure why you think it's clear given the number of tight legal fights over how to interpret it, often involving some radical changes in government policy, but hey, I think it's ambiguous, right from the get go.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Okay, let's go through this in more detail.
From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.
You and I disagree. I think the case law and the arguments around the 2nd amendment are due to the 2nd amendment being ambiguous. There are grounds for multiple interpretations. I'm not sure why you think it's clear given the number of tight legal fights over how to interpret it, often involving some radical changes in government policy, but hey, I think it's ambiguous, right from the get go.
How did you come up with the theory that it's ambiguous from the get-go, when every major Supreme Court decision and historical document on the subject up until about the year 2000, nearly 300 years of jurisprudence and history, interpreted the Second Amendment one way and only one way?
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Okay, let's go through this in more detail.
From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.
You and I disagree. I think the case law and the arguments around the 2nd amendment are due to the 2nd amendment being ambiguous. There are grounds for multiple interpretations. I'm not sure why you think it's clear given the number of tight legal fights over how to interpret it, often involving some radical changes in government policy, but hey, I think it's ambiguous, right from the get go.
How did you come up with the theory that it's ambiguous from the get-go, when every major Supreme Court decision and historical document on the subject up until about the year 2000, nearly 300 years of jurisprudence and history, interpreted the Second Amendment one way and only one way?
From the get go? I posted two different versions entered into law when it was put in place.
What was the one way and the only way it was interpreted for nearly 300 years?
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Okay, let's go through this in more detail.
From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.
The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.
You and I disagree. I think the case law and the arguments around the 2nd amendment are due to the 2nd amendment being ambiguous. There are grounds for multiple interpretations. I'm not sure why you think it's clear given the number of tight legal fights over how to interpret it, often involving some radical changes in government policy, but hey, I think it's ambiguous, right from the get go.
How did you come up with the theory that it's ambiguous from the get-go, when every major Supreme Court decision and historical document on the subject up until about the year 2000, nearly 300 years of jurisprudence and history, interpreted the Second Amendment one way and only one way?
From the get go? I posted two different versions entered into law when it was put in place.
What was the one way and the only way it was interpreted for nearly 300 years?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184073&start=15#p4019981
Users browsing this forum: No registered users