Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
Question remains
how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
Question remains
how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
[Q
We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto othersBut you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto othersBut you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.
You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
Nothing but diversion, right wingers?Only the clueless and the Causeless say that. The People are the Militia. What part of that do y'all not understand?The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized. There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
No, silly person. It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest. I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
Run along little sheep, run along.
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.
Hi @
Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off frigidweirdo
I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights. For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground. Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
Question remains
how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.How is it biased?
It's simple fact.
Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto othersBut you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
The Heller case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated". Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.
You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
If you can't refute, ignore.
So? Read what the amendment says. Incorporation wasn't necessary.And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
If you can't refute, ignore.
No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court.
Of course it did. Since an armed populace etc. was necessary, the right cannot be infringed. That means that if Massachusetts made a law forbidding its subjects from buying a gun, that law would infringe, and so it's unconstitutional.In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
Can a bank robber walk into a bank, threaten the teller, and take money out of the bank? Yes, he can. Happens fairly frequently. Does that mean it's legal for him to rob the bank?Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?
So? Read what the amendment says. Incorporation wasn't necessary.And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
If you can't refute, ignore.
No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court.
Of course it did. Since an armed populace etc. was necessary, the right cannot be infringed. That means that if Massachusetts made a law forbidding its subjects from buying a gun, that law would infringe, and so it's unconstitutional.In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
Again, read what the amendment says. What else matters? Is there some law in this country that overrides the U.S. Constitution?
Are you stupid? Semi automatic rifles or just that sporting rifles nothing more nothing less. Dip shitFor that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
That is what I mean by there being a bias.
C. Let me describe it another way:
The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"
Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.
They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
I know this analogy isn't perfect.
But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
No, I'm not.
I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
Can a bank robber walk into a bank, threaten the teller, and take money out of the bank? Yes, he can. Happens fairly frequently. Does that mean it's legal for him to rob the bank?Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?
Of course not, because there are laws forbidding him to do that.
Similarly, there is a law forbidding govt from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that governments do it anyway, doesn't make it any more legal than the bank robber's act makes bank robbery legal. Both violate the law.
