SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: chalu2 who wrote (3627)5/13/2000 10:55:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler  Read Replies (1) of 13062
 
Ambiguities indeed. Sheer legal sophistry almost as herniated as your other deconstructionist arguments!

I think it's clear that "the people" is not intended by the Founders to be restricted to the context of well-regulated state militias. We did not have a standing national military in 1789 and a militia is a VOLUNTARY organization; precatory rather than mandatory. Having the several states regulate militias meant that they would help mobilize them again a common foreign enemy, which was a real threat to the fledgling Union.

So, if the 2nd meant that citizen would be restricted to bearing arms only in the context of being in a militia, then it would be stated that the states COULD infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. Because then "people" would mean only those belonging to a militia. This is clearly nonsensical to use "people" to mean only those in a militia.

"Keep" means "own", being a common 18th century usage.

It is the fallacy of composition to say that only "the people" collectively can keep and bear arms but individuals alone cannot.


AMENDMENT II

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext