3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
You don't need my permission to disagree with flawed logic. Unfortunately, with or without my permission, disagreeing with good logic and substituting your own bad logic is most likely to make you 'wrong'. If you're fine with being demonstrably wrong, go for it!Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You don't have to agree with the logic. It's relatively clear (though not beyond doubt) that this was the intent of the amendment.
Again, you are stating an opinion, not an argument, when you make conclusive statements such as "it's relatively clear that x is x". And you are entitled to your opinion... just like I certainly don't need your permission to disagree with obviously flawed logic.
This is not opinion, unless you believe that the founding fathers and early presidents were only voicing their 'opinion' about how they intended the government that they themselves created to function. This seems a little preposterous.The American government was not created with the intent of being revolution-proof. It was in fact created with the intent that if the time came, it would fall to a revolution. A very unique and admirable effort, if you ask me.
So you think, but cannot prove. More conclusive statements. This has no bearing on the Second Amendment, anyway.
Unfortunately, you are wrong once again. Heartsurgeon is talking about the private right of ownership which is protected by the language of the second amendment. As far as 'bearing' arms, it's hard to argue that this right extends universally beyond your own private property, but in some places that right is extended further by state legislation.You'll note that heartsurgeon's rather precise and historically accurate statement does not include support for 'the right to carry any gun anywhere, anytime'. It does not include an unlimited right to keep a loaded shotgun in your living room, nor to shoot through the door when somoen rings the bell. It covers what it covers, and ignores many controversies about gun rights (most of which exist now as a result of larger, deser urban populations), thus leaving these as state issues.
Already noted. heartsurgeon's comment can actually be read as much as an argument for the collective-rights model as for anything else. I didn't think that was his/her intent so I chose not to nitpick.
Since historically, the militia was in no way a standing army, and the ambiguity of the phrasing not withstanding, the only relation between the clauses of the second amendment that makes perfect sense, is that a citizenry capable of arming itself for war at a moment's notice was desirable, and therefore private ownership of arms was to be encouraged. Any other interpretation is a stretch, at best.
Sadly, you'd be better sticking to 'people'. It's more convincing. You're trying to combine clauses in a very motivated way to produce an outcome thta you know perfectly well does not fit with the way the world worked 200 years ago.Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, hinges on the use of the word 'people'
No. I believe this is a misconception. All the arguments about a different interpretation of the word "people" being necessary to the collective-rights model are simply wrong. Arguments for the collective-rights model mostly focus on "keep and bear arms" in conjunction with the militia clause.
I think any reasonable person can see that you are reading too much of what you want it to say, and not enough of what it actually says.
I think any reasonable person can see that you're wrong, especially with the way you assume what you set out to prove.
I don't think any reasonable person will conclude that I am wrong, though they may think it is possible that I am wrong. Anything is possible.
