(05-03-2021 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 02:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham's comment I was responding to seemed broader than what has been discussed in the back and forth on the board so far. He said that he has "yet to hear one single person from the left on this issue, including some of the greatest minds out there... tell me why the requirement to amend the constitution shouldn't apply here."

So I made a point that references the bolded portion of your comment. There are already existing legal arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended to restrict someone's right "to keep and bear arms."

Can you please tell me how the response you gave is responsive to my comment such that you'd ask 'how hard are you looking? You're essentially arguing that you aren't trying to amend the right to bear arms, you are merely trying to expand the limitations. I'm looking, and you're obfuscating.

(05-03-2021 01:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  First of all, where have I advocated for an assault weapons ban in this conversation? If you aren't talking about me, perhaps you could change the second bolded sentence.

The first bolded sentence is a great example of why language in this instance is important - civilian uses for machine guns DO exist. They would make a very good tool for home defense. Heck, I bet a smart bomb would be great for managing some pesky rock formation on a rural piece of property someone was developing. And you absolutely could protect property with a cruise missile.

But what we've found is, through multiple rulings, there are extents to which arms can be regulated. Most recently it's been based on their common use, so it's not that one CAN'T use a cruise missile for home defense, it's that this is not the common use for it so it can be heavily regulated.

Would it be better if an amendment was passed that clarified the 2nd Amendment and what arms were specifically protected? Absolutely.

But obviously there is some ambiguity in how the 2nd Amendment was written and what limits to the second amendment exist. So with that being said, I don't think it's appropriate to default to labeling those who think it is constitutional to ban assault rifles/AR-15s/etc. as trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. And that seems to be your position on the matter.

Long story short, there seem to be logical arguments as to why our current interpretation allows for laws to ban AR-15 ownership. Likewise, there are logical arguments as to why the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow banning of AR-15 ownership. And I don't think either stance is trying to circumvent the amendment.

Remember when I said 'intelligently argue'? This is what I meant.

You start by accusing me of assigning a belief to you... which I never did... and you ask me to defend having done so?

Let's start with this. Your definition of 'home defense' is inconsistent with the laws on lawful discharge for home defense. If you indiscriminately bomb or shoot or land-mine someone on your property, you are not acting within the laws of self-defense. You must REASONABLY be in fear for your life in order to act in self defense. Something Tanq has mentioned and you've ignores. If the guy is far enough away that a missile is appropriate, it is going to be all but impossible to conclude that you were acting in self-defense.

Your fantasy about how a machine gun is appropriate for home defense aligns you with morons on the right of this issue. Machine guns, bombs, missiles etc are not discriminate weapons.

Let me say that differently... The weapons that have been disallowed generally do not fit the definition of 'suitable for LEGAL home defense'. Mostly because LEGAL home defense requires believing that 'this person you killed' was going to kill you and/or that any collateral damage was 'reasonable'.

You cannot reasonably use a machine gun or cruise missile inside or even close to your home. If someone is not inside/close to your home... not an immediate threat... you generally don't have the legal authority to kill them. This is what you keep ignoring because it doesn't allow you to continue to expand the infringement. Only in a post-apocalyptic scenario are there hordes of home invaders such that a cruise missile or machine gun was appropriate. Even your comment about using it against a 'pesky rock formation'?? That's not even remotely home defense. That's like saying you should be allowed to use dynamite (without regulation) to dig a pool. This lays bare where your mind is on this subject.

No, there is NOT any ambiguity in the 2nd amendment. As I said, if there were, you would have seen challenges to it and/or violations of it early on. I'm fairly certain you did not see any AT ALL until the 20th century.... more than 100 years without anyone finding ambiguity. You wanted a Gatling gun or a cannon? It's yours. Maybe if you could show me where someone, even a PIRATE was arrested for the crime of owning a cannon, I could agree with you. They weren't. They were only charged with using them for an otherwise ILLEGAL purpose.

The "well-regulated militia" thing seems very ambigious.

Couple of things there ---

a) there are zero verbs associated with the clause 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' -- thus an introduction clause. But zero action.

b) the verb phrase is 'shall not be infringed' --- the subject of that verb phrase is 'the right of the *people*'. It *doesnt* say 'the right of the people in the militia', and it doesnt say 'the right of the militia'.

So no, it isnt ambiguous when you look at it and diagram it and simply analyze it using very common English.

Try this one on:

'Good libraries, being necessary for the education of the masses, the people's right to own and use books shall not be infringed'.

The prefaratory phrase notes a reasoning why the individual right to the the individuals in the group is a good thing -- that creates no special rights solely for libraries at all. When rephrased, I dont think there is anyone alive that would/could argue that the rephrased version creates only rights for people who belong to a library club....

The argument that you are making, then, is that the militia phrase is completely irrelevant. I find is hard to believe that the FF threw that in for no reason.

Some people with better legal minds than me (can you imagine?) apparently feel the same way...

What relevance do you find in the language? I see zero actions dealing with 'militia'. To be bluntly honest, the FF did know the difference between 'people' and 'militia', I would assume.

And I think most cogent people know the difference between the groupings of 'the people' and 'people in a militia'.

To put that into your point of view, our Founding Fathers had zero idea that there is a difference between 'people' and 'militia'; and that they had zero concept of the difference between the groups of 'the people' and 'the people in a militia.'

I've actually read much of the base works of the FF, and they dont seem as illiterate as that.

In the idea of following common English (which the FF were exceptionally well versed in, imo), the 'militia' phrase is put there to offer a rationale for a 'rigt of the people' --- i.e. 'if you like the scent of flowers, plant roses.'

In your view, the FF are illiterate to the extent that they dont know the differences between 'militia' and 'people' and the entire group could not form that solitary sentence as a group of a 100+ well versed, well educated persons, and each and every one of them were so illiterate that they did not know the difference between the words 'people' and 'militia' in that one spot in the Constitution.

I would hazard a guess that you are well educated, but, I would hazard another guess that none of us here are as well educated as anyone in that group in 1787. I think I know the difference between 'people' and 'militia', and am bright enough to make sure that the proper word is used in a sentence that would be cornerstone of the new country; I also suspect that you know that difference as well. Correct?

I dont buy that that group of erudite and learned men all fell to the same gross misunderstanding of English. But, at its core, that is the argument that you are making here.

Please do tell, where is the explicit grant of right and to whom is it directed?

Do you think the FF as group are so illiterate as to simply forget they use a different word for another group that they intended? That is what the side that you are promulgating has to default to, in all honesty.

And no, it is not 'no reason' -- it is presented as a rationale. Do you think that the term 'A well stocked library, being good for the education of the people' is irrelevant? Its not. It is presenting a rationale for the issue that follows. But, the rationale has zero verbs, zero words of bequest -- the verb phrase and bequest is to 'the people'.

I think it would be arch-stupidity to think that the rephrased example put forward limited the right to own books to libraries. Maybe not solely arch-stupidity, but arch-adherence to a specific outcome would be another option.....