Just sayin...

[Voidwar]

Since you speak and understand English, then I am sure that you have no trouble agreeing that the 2nd was written with the sole purpose of allowing individuals that right to bear arms so that they could maintain a well regulated militia for the benefit of society and not simply for an individual to simply own a gun because they want to and not be part of a common defense.

I actually understand English so well that I can name the linguistic construct employed. It is called ablative absolute, and it is very common construction in Latin, which most of the founders were familiar with. Ablative absolute points out one good reason for the following independent clause, but it does not rule out nor imply the non-existance of other good reasons. More importantly, the part you mention is a dependent clause, and is thus subordinate to the independent clause, which expressly states that the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

 

[Voidwar]

Of course it needs to be interpreted. If we didn't interpret the constitution, wouldn't the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater also be protected, bar constitutional amendment?

I don't think that any "interpretation" is required.

Causing a panic, using a lie, in an act of economic disruption, is not "speech", its causing a panic, using a lie, in an act of economic disruption.

The act is illegal for the same reasons bringing in a stink bomb would be. The "speech" involved in the crime you describe, is incidental to the act.

If I talk to you while I rob you, my right to free speech doesn't protect me from being prosecuted for robbery.

 

[BlueKC]

I don't think that any "interpretation" is required.

Causing a panic, using a lie, in an act of economic disruption, is not "speech", its causing a panic, using a lie, in an act of economic disruption.

The act is illegal for the same reasons bringing in a stink bomb would be. The "speech" involved in the crime you describe, is incidental to the act.

If I talk to you while I rob you, my right to free speech doesn't protect me from being prosecuted for robbery.

Would that be your interpretation of the 1st amendment?
Because mine could just as easily be that my right to free speech is being abridged. Who has the authority to settle such a dispute?

 

[Voidwar]

No, it would be my assessment of the classic yet flawed "fire in a theater" example.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ahhh, so you are misunderstanding his use of "only". It makes sense now. I suppose you think he meant it like "only" a square peg can fir in a square hole. I disagree. I think he meant it like The technology of firearms had "only" reached the level of Musket at the time of the Constitutional Congress. So if the second "only" covered firearms tech up to the level of muskets, then the 1st would cover printing technology "only" up to the level of an antique press.

You can disagree all you like. It doesn't make your perception of the sentence any more correct, nor does it alter the definition. The word "only" is used as an adverb in the sentence. It modifies the verb "covers". As an adverb, "only" is defined as "Without anyone or anything else, exclusively". The 2nd covers only muskets. Nothing to do with knives or other weapons in the context of the ad.. Nothing about firearms tech. Exclusively muskets. Sorry, analogy fails.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I don't think that any "interpretation" is required.

Causing a panic, using a lie, in an act of economic disruption, is not "speech", its causing a panic, using a lie, in an act of economic disruption.

The act is illegal for the same reasons bringing in a stink bomb would be. The "speech" involved in the crime you describe, is incidental to the act.

If I talk to you while I rob you, my right to free speech doesn't protect me from being prosecuted for robbery.

Hence why the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech. It is still speech, even if it is used during an illegal act. The act does not change this.

 

[the makeout hobo]

I still want to know... who says the second amendment is only limited to flintlocks?

 

[Voidwar]

You can disagree all you like. It doesn't make your perception of the sentence any more correct,

Actually it does. Context is relevant. If one doesn't know the context of this argument, then one might be that dense, but let me ask you this, genius, do you think he meant the first ONLY covered those antique printing presses, or could people still write a letter with a pen ? ? ? If you are too thick to understand the context, and realize that this is an "only up to" usage, then that is your problem.

 

[Bodi]

I actually understand English so well that I can name the linguistic construct employed. It is called ablative absolute, and it is very common construction in Latin, which most of the founders were familiar with. Ablative absolute points out one good reason for the following independent clause, but it does not rule out nor imply the non-existance of other good reasons. More importantly, the part you mention is a dependent clause, and is thus subordinate to the independent clause, which expressly states that the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

in order to maintain a well-regulated militia
right?

I had to look up the ablative absolute, so I might be misunderstanding it with my five minute crash course...
But, the way I do understand it is that the 2nd should read like this:

“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

 

[Voidwar]

in order to maintain a well-regulated militia
right?

No. More like :
"since it is conducive to a good militia and we need one of those. . . "

but exactly like "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

I had to look up the ablative absolute, so I might be misunderstanding it with my five minute crash course...
But, the way I do understand it is that the 2nd should read like this:

“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Then you are not understanding it completely, since ablative absolute only points out one good reason for something. One good reason among many, and no singling out of the reason mentioned as the only reason. It is a dependant clause for a reason.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Hence why the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech. It is still speech, even if it is used during an illegal act. The act does not change this.

difference


You can not yell "fire" in a theatre because it infringes on others rights potentially to life.


My owning an AK-47 infringes on no one else.

 

[niftydrifty]

(by the way, am I mistaken, or is that gun in the picture a caplock, not a flintlock?)

it's totally a flintlock. a "brown bess," to be exact.

Brown Bess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[the makeout hobo]

it's totally a flintlock. a "brown bess," to be exact.

Brown Bess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. I couldn't get a good look at the firing mechanism, which is what I was going off of

 

[Bodi]

No. More like :
"since it is conducive to a good militia and we need one of those. . . "

but exactly like "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state



Then you are not understanding it completely, since ablative absolute only points out one good reason for something. One good reason among many, and no singling out of the reason mentioned as the only reason. It is a dependant clause for a reason.

I am not sure if I understand ablative absolutes or not, but I understand that ,“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary.

 

[BlueKC]

I am not sure if I understand ablative absolutes or not, but I understand that ,“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary.

Agreed. I also fail to understand why the framers would only use ablative absolutes for that one amendment. There are no equivalent clauses found in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Voidwar]

I am not sure if I understand ablative absolutes or not, but I understand that ,“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary.

Your inserted "because" changes the meaning too much.

Rather than "because" and its one to one implications, if you have to change the original wording, think of it as "that being the case, . . ."

 

[Bodi]

Your inserted "because" changes the meaning too much.

Rather than "because" and its one to one implications, if you have to change the original wording, think of it as "that being the case, . . ."

Sure, either way though, it is about, "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state".

Originally Posted by BlueKC
Agreed. I also fail to understand why the framers would only use ablative absolutes for that one amendment. There are no equivalent clauses found in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I don't understand it, and I think that it is also most likely irrelevant.

It seems clear that they intended to protect a eprson's right to bear arms as a means to protect, "a well regulated militia ...(that is)... necessary to the security of a free state"

 

[bilbus]

Muskets are illegal in New Jersey....

Just saying comrades.

Really, thats quite ironic