Is the United States just that barabaric and uncivilized compared to other developed countries? Don't you think some people with bad ideas feel more empowered by having a gun? It is just hard for me to reconcile that we are that much more murderous than a country like Australia that was founded and began as a penal colony around the same time the US became a country.
I do read some contemporary stuff, but when I am trying to make my own judgments on something like this I prefer to do the research myself rather than read an author telling me what to believe. I appreciate your help in trying to find "reasonable" authors, but reasonableness is subjective. Plus it is the logical fallacy of "argument to moderation".
Then vote for him! Having a debate about historical context of the 2nd amendment in 1790 and the reality of gun law in 2015 are two different conversations Fact is that the Supreme Court affirmed individual rights in the Heller case. Unless that decision is overturned individual right is the law of the land. And me posting about the purposes and intent of the 2nd amendment doesnt change that fact.
I can appreciate the kumbaya can't we all get along sentiment. But this is something that has been building for decades and techonology is just bringing police practices into the spotlight and we as a society are re-evaluating these interactions and thinking "there is something wrong here". 40-50 police officers get killed every year. It is a dangerous job. But the job of law enforcement officer has implied risks. You know that going in. At the same time we have to somehow stop installing the mentality that their lives are in perpetual danger. Admittedly a delicate balancing act there, but now we have police who assume the worst in every situation to the point where they are shooting or escalating a situation when it is not necessary. To me the owness is on the police officers to change procedurally for a couple of reasons. 1- they are the ones with power in any given situation. 2- you cant control every citizen, but we can control police procedure and rules of engagement. No matter what you do there will still be police officers who get injured or killed in the line of duty. That just comes with the job. There will also be police homicides, we have an extremely armed populace so there will never be a way to completely eradicate police deaths or police homicides. There is not a perfect solution, but there are changes that can be made to reduce opportunities for death of our citizens. Lastly, there always seem to be a contingent of usually conservative posters that have this mentality that people who point out to instances of police brutality or racism as the instigators. To me this is an implicit endorsement of status quo and a shifting of blame from the people performing the acts to the people bringing those acts to the public's consciousness. If we dont acknowledge police brutality or racism doesnt mean it isn't happening. If you just ignore something it will never change. And that is unacceptable on both fronts. If you think about it, until technology and social media began to shed light on these police practices, the public was largely unaware it existed or was as bad as some had claimed. And until that happened there was no talk or public cry for reform. Willful ignorance does not affect change, and in this case change is very much needed and overdue.
1- Again that is not true. The "unorganized militia" is a phrase that was created for the Dick Act in 1902. No one mentions anything about an unorganized militia during the constitutional debates leading up to ratification because there was no such thing. Plus if you want to use the legal definition of "unorganized militia" it would not include any women at all and no man over 45 years old, as that definition legally only applies to men ages 17 to 45. Not the "whole of the people" by any stretch. 2- sorry that was my fault for not thoroughly explaining that, it only pertained to every able bodied man except for those that war activities were againt their religious beliefs Also, again you are wrong. Actually people didnt have a choice not to arm themselves (except on religious grounds) it was mandatory for the men to attend military training, have arms, report to their officers, and train with their regiments by act of Congress after the ratification. 3- I am simply pointing out that context matters to fully understand phraseology. That isn't exactly a crazy notion lol 4- not really trying trying to sway gun owners, just discussing the 2nd amendment and history. Not going to solve any problems in the Tinderbox here on the Huddle. 5- Bernie Sander 2016!!
There were no standing military, the militia were the people (gun advocates say this all the time). And the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the state militias and subsequently their power and ability to defend themselves. And because of that every able bodied man had to report for training usually twice a year, they were under the direction of state appointed officers, and were put in different regiments. Everything about the 2nd amendment is in the context of military service and raising armies, and it's purposes was to allow states to defend themselves unilaterally. If you want to own a gun you should be required to volunteer for military service like the 2nd amendment intended
Glad you brought up the Patrick Henry ratification speech. That speech further illustrates my position. In that speech Henry explains why the power of state militias and them staying in jurisdiction of State government was in his opinion paramount to individual liberty. The case he made (along with many other anti-federalists) is exactly why the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights The entire premise of his speech was that the Constitution usurps all individual state powers, and that Congress would disarm a state's militia, use a state's militia against them, or refuse to arm their state's militia. Patrick Henry was actually simply rejecting the idea that "states" and "the people" were essentially the same thing as federalists who wrote and advocated for the ratification of the Constitution had been assuring him. His argument directly led to the 2nd amendment He articulates the concerns in that very speech:
The fear of the federal government disarming State militias and thus threatening their independence was the exact reason the 2nd amendment was put in place. To acquiesce those fears and to ensure the federal government would not usurp State powers and force a tyrannical rule by overthrowing state governments either by military force or legislatively disarming them.
So you are saying that if I wrote a document that referred to people in a church 20 times and referred to people in a school once, that that one time really meant people in a church because it did every other time? Lol okay. The State militias were composed of the people, and in both the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers the phrase "the people" were used in the context of the States and their governments when discussing balance of power between the federal government and State governments. Even the earliest drafts show that "military service" and "bear arms" has same meaning and intent. That is why there was little difference in the language used. You could not be compelled to perform "military service" or you could not he compelled to "bear arms" means essentially the same thing. You couldnt be forced into military service if it conflicted with religous beliefs. Plus you ignored your own statement when you essentially said they meant in early drafts "you have a right, but you also have a right to not have a right." which is nonsensical. Gun advocates always ignore the context of that time when it came to standing armies, state loyalty, and how national and State defense mechanism worked during the time. The people were more loyal to their states than the nation, and the state governments were thought to better represent their people. "The security of a free State" addresses exactly that. It doesnt mean "preserve the condition of national freedom" it means to protect the power of the individual states and their people and their governments. If the amendment means what you say it means then the authors actually were idiots and sputtered out sentence fragments on the level of 4th grade English. I tend to agree with you that they were not idiots and said exactly what they meant in the context of that time period's language and context of military in the US at that time.
No you don't. Having two words or phrases refer to different things does not require proof within the same document. If I write a document that refers to people in a school 20 times and refers to people in a church once that doesnt mean that the people in that one instance must of meant people in a school because it was only used that once If "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was the intent, why did the amendment not just say that with no preamble? As you said, they were not idiots. If that is what they intended they just would have left it at that. The preamble has a purpose, and that purpose is to provide the context for the amendment and it's intent. When they said ""no one religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" that clearly shows that they were talking in the context of military service, and that belief is bolstered by the other language "no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" It is pretty obvious even in my low level of reading comprehension in what context they were meaning. Also you say that those early drafts were saying people had a "right to refuse to bear arms". But if bear arms is not military service and simply means owning a weapon, why would that even need to be in there? That is like saying "you have the right to free speech, but you also have the right to not have free speech" lol. No it was because "bear arms" was a phrase that meant military service, and you had a right to refuse to be forced into to military service if it was against your religion.
That is not true. You dont have to find multiple uses of a phrase in a single document to prove that similar words or phrases have different a meaning in different contexts in that time period. The only militias in existence were the individual state militias, so the purposes of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government to order state militias to disarm. An early text of the amendment was: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It was pretty clear that the context was in a military context and the only military were state militias. Also that last part is interesting because in other drafts of the amendment it stated "no on religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" Thus offering proof that "bear arms" is also clearly meant in a military sense If you look at it on the whole the amendment was saying that the federal government could not prevent states from raising, training, and using their militias for their own defense.