Today's shooting in America thread

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I’m a lawyer in the USA. No SERIOUS lawyer I know interprets that clause as outside the context of needing a regulated militia. Or creating a magic right to own and walk around with any and every weapon without restriction.

Bingo!!!

Yet here we are.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Definitions...take your pick...
View attachment 44555

Err, Number 1, please, Ted! ;-)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Trev, mate, you are hung up on language that has been discussed for all of its existence. Hell, even the syntax and grammar are the thing of theses!

One thing that modern language has altered is the notion of militia. It’s older meaning isn’t the same as today. The threat was from not only foreign governments, but the strength of other colonies, especially Virginia. When written, America was obsessed with the thought of their nascent freedoms being usurped by a tyrannical force, foreign OR domestic, which is why you see that phrase elsewhere.

Some my feel they could rightfully argue that the 50 state National Guards serve this militia function today, but strict constructionists would tell you that is not what the language says or meant WHEN WRITTEN, and any change to that meaning is current political creep applied over a foundational document that gave that freedom to individuals OVER the state…and they would be right, if we believed that the Founding Fathers didn't want the Constitution to mature, but they did.

However, as part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, 2A is seen as a FOUNDATIONAL CITIZEN’S RIGHT…emphasis on RIGHT…and memorialized in “shall not be infringed,” which many already believe has happened and shouldn’t have.

And here we sit…

It is an amendment though…

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It is an amendment though…

Why?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Why?

I guess because it has been amended at some point?

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

I'm curious. How would these poor fkers defend themselves...without guns...from the roaming hordes of Vampires and Zombies that they seem to believe exist in their homeland.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I guess because it has been amended at some point?

No, because it was necessary to have the Constitution include FEDERAL POWERS, and the “right to bear arms” was considered a state issue at the time, because it was to keep the federal government in check.

Also, it was NOT originally the Second Amendment, it was the Fourth, but the first two original amendments were voted down.

Original First Amendment:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

(There would be over 6,000 Representatives today, which shows how the Framers had no idea what America would become.)

Original Second Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Though not ratified at the time, the original second amendment finally made its way into the Constitution in 1992, ratified as the 27th Amendment, a full 203 years after it was first proposed.

So, now, when people tell you Freedom of Speech and Guns were SO fundamental to American life they were the First and Second Amendments, you can tell them how their 21st Century prejudices have colored their vision! Rather, like 21st century politicians, they were primarily concerned with JOBS (how many of them there were) and PAY (when they would get a raise)!

However, all joking aside, the Constitution was hard work and there were significant compromises made, to the point that some famous people refused to sign it BECAUSE the Bill of Rights was not part of it, while others ONLY agreed to sign it with the understanding a Bill of Rights would be added after further deliberations.

It was a messy political fight to codify and legitimize a new world, a new society, and a new way of living without the King owning you, your land, or your labor...and Americans would fight for that principle again, if necessary, even if it was their own new country that tried to assert such power.

Freedom was a VERY BIG DEAL when America was born, and that word is still synonymous with America, even though many things have changed since then.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No, because it was necessary to have the Constitution include FEDERAL POWERS, and the “right to bear arms” was considered a state issue at the time, because it was to keep the federal government in check.

Also, it was NOT originally the Second Amendment, it was the Fourth, but the first two original amendments were voted down.

Original First Amendment:

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

(There would be over 6,000 Representatives today, which shows how the Framers had no idea what America would become.)

Original Second Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Though not ratified at the time, the original second amendment finally made its way into the Constitution in 1992, ratified as the 27th Amendment, a full 203 years after it was first proposed.

So, now, when people tell you Freedom of Speech and Guns were SO fundamental to American life they were the First and Second Amendments, you can tell them how their 21st Century prejudices have colored their vision! Rather, like 21st century politicians, they were primarily concerned with JOBS (how many of them there were) and PAY (when they would get a raise)!

However, all joking aside, the Constitution was hard work and there were significant compromises made, to the point that some famous people refused to sign it BECAUSE the Bill of Rights was not part of it, while others ONLY agreed to sign it with the understanding a Bill of Rights would be added after further deliberations.

It was a messy political fight to codify and legitimize a new world, a new society, and a new way of living without the King owning you, your land, or your labor...and Americans would fight for that principle again, if necessary, even if it was their own new country that tried to assert such power.

Freedom was a VERY BIG DEAL when America was born, and that word is still synonymous with America, even though many things have changed since then.

So, in conclusion, the world has moved on, but your constitution hasn’t.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So, in conclusion, the world has moved on, but your constitution hasn’t.

The world has moved on and THE Constitution has, too, just not in the ways that some of US would like.

As in 2A, language is important, so please don’t twist it in an attempt to belittle or harm.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Trev, mate, you are hung up on language that has been discussed for all of its existence. Hell, even the syntax and grammar are the thing of theses!

One thing that modern language has altered is the notion of militia. It’s older meaning isn’t the same as today. The threat was from not only foreign governments, but the strength of other colonies, especially Virginia. When written, America was obsessed with the thought of their nascent freedoms being usurped by a tyrannical force, foreign OR domestic, which is why you see that phrase elsewhere.

Some my feel they could rightfully argue that the 50 state National Guards serve this militia function today, but strict constructionists would tell you that is not what the language says or meant WHEN WRITTEN, and any change to that meaning is current political creep applied over a foundational document that gave that freedom to individuals OVER the state…and they would be right, if we believed that the Founding Fathers didn't want the Constitution to mature, but they did.

However, as part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, 2A is seen as a FOUNDATIONAL CITIZEN’S RIGHT…emphasis on RIGHT…and memorialized in “shall not be infringed,” which many already believe has happened and shouldn’t have.

And here we sit…

The interpretation of 2A as the statement that underpins citizens unfettered right in law to bear weapons (including mil spec weapons and ammunition) is the original big lie. Convince enough people that it's true and it becomes pseudo-fact.