Ah. A believer in a living constitution. A constitution that goes with the modern times. I bet you think judges should be able to make laws with their precedents, too.A lot of people, lawyers and judges included, make the mistake of falsely imputing modern understandings of words onto the words of laws written hundreds of years ago. That is the major flaw in your analysis. You can't just read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and act like you've got it all figured out. The world is a very different place now than it was back when these document were written. You need to learn the history.
I'm not playing semantics. If read as a proper noun, the 2A would not apply in Washington D.C. If read as a common noun it would.
In order to understand it in "historical context" one must have studied the "historical context," as opposed to quoting from sources who are trying to place a modern interpretation on the social paradigm of that era.
Now, please provide specific "historical context" citations for that "martial term of art" interpretation you are trying to impose on "keep and bear arms."
Then cite specific "historical context" supporting the position that the "prefatory clause informs the whole amendment."
Aside from the fact that the SCOTUS Heller v. D.C. ruling has clarified it (apparently in a way you prefer not to accept), in MY study of the period I don't recall arguments tying the right to a militia purpose and no other purpose but that. I would be VERY interested in seeing and then researching exactly what "historical context" materials you think support your viewpoint.
PLEASE, "enlighten" me. :roll:
In order to understand it in "historical context" one must have studied the "historical context," as opposed to quoting from sources who are trying to place a modern interpretation on the social paradigm of that era.
Now, please provide specific "historical context" citations for that "martial term of art" interpretation you are trying to impose on "keep and bear arms."
Then cite specific "historical context" supporting the position that the "prefatory clause informs the whole amendment."
Aside from the fact that the SCOTUS Heller v. D.C. ruling has clarified it (apparently in a way you prefer not to accept), in MY study of the period I don't recall arguments tying the right to a militia purpose and no other purpose but that. I would be VERY interested in seeing and then researching exactly what "historical context" materials you think support your viewpoint.
PLEASE, "enlighten" me. :roll:
If the Founders meant to protect a right from federal infringement, they would have interpreted it in the broadest possible way.................meaning a right of each citizen to keep and bear arms.
Well, I can tell pretty clearly from the tone of your post that you've shut your mind to learning anything already. But on the off chance that you're interested in getting an education on the subject, all your questions are answered in this article, which I have already cited in this thread:
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-2.pdf
Ah. A believer in a living constitution. A constitution that goes with the modern times. I bet you think judges should be able to make laws with their precedents, too.
Well, I can tell pretty clearly from the tone of your post that you've shut your mind to learning anything already. But on the off chance that you're interested in getting an education on the subject, all your questions are answered in this article, which I have already cited in this thread:
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-2.pdf
I don't think you understand what I wrote.
Actually I have a Master's degree with my major being the study of this very period; 1760 - 1800 with a particular focus on this Amendment. My mind is not "closed," it is "educated" on the topic.
However, I will read the citation and research it.
A lot of people, lawyers and judges included, make the mistake of falsely imputing modern understandings of words onto the words of laws written hundreds of years ago. That is the major flaw in your analysis. You can't just read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and act like you've got it all figured out. The world is a very different place now than it was back when these document were written. You need to learn the history.
But you don't actually understand what "keep and bear arms" meant to the framers.
Well, I apologize for misinterpreting. But for future reference, you appeared to be sarcastic with all the bolding and so forth in your post.Actually I have a Master's degree with my major being the study of this very period; 1760 - 1800 with a particular focus on this Amendment. My mind is not "closed," it is "educated" on the topic.
However, I will read the citation and research it.
I don't disagree with all of that, although I'd say that the second amendment relates to a state militia as opposed to a federal standing army.It meant arms of a militia (infantry), they were specific. These are deemed to serve self defense (personal responsibility) as opposed to national defense (state responsibility).
I don't disagree with all of that, although I'd say that the second amendment relates to a state militia as opposed to a federal standing army.
Nonsense - the meaning of "right of the people" has not changed at all. Those (ancient?) folks knew quite well that there is a difference between the militia and the people. Do you have any other historical surprises about which other people might have been exempted from the bill of rights?
There are lots of interesting differences between the historical meaning of the bill of rights and the modern gloss that has been put on them. For example, the first amendment only protected political speech. No founder would have ever dreamed that it would be use to protect something like blasphemy.
There are lots of interesting differences between the historical meaning of the bill of rights and the modern gloss that has been put on them. For example, the first amendment only protected political speech. No founder would have ever dreamed that it would be use to protect something like blasphemy.
Well, I apologize for misinterpreting. But for future reference, you appeared to be sarcastic with all the bolding and so forth in your post. I look forward to hearing your educated thoughts on the subject.
Well, your disagreement notwithstanding....
Okay I’ve read it thoroughly and here is my understanding of what he is discussing in his article.
First, if you read the article his primary effort is geared toward disputing the methodology used by Scalia in his majority opinion, arguing the weaknesses of his justifications for interpreting the right as an individual one in the Heller decision.
No Constitutional scholar would disagree that some of the methodology used had some glaring weaknesses, because Scalia was not only trying to argue original intent, he was trying to overcome prior SCOTUS rulings on gun control issues without negating stare decisis.
However, the author also points out that even at the time of the ratification debates there were at least three different methods advocated about how to interpret the language used in Constitutional construction. Which only goes to show that even then there was disagreement about how to read the clauses between the very people who were writing it.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that we accept one of those methods, the one advocating that the preamble defines the follow-on clause. It still does not equate (as the author hopes to imply) to an interpretation that the right is tied to a militia requirement, and Scalia got it wrong.
That's because the author is either unaware of, or ignoring the issue of the social paradigm existing at the time of the ratification debates, and how it can shift over time.
To save space I’d like to refer you to a post on this in a different thread:
Then I am willing to respond to your questions. Okay?
You know, I never said anything about being brilliant. The fact that I take the time to read up on the subject doesn't make me brilliant, it just makes me not ignorant.
This is not my own argument, I have read the writings of other, more learned historians and scholars of legal history. It certainly doesn't require any particular brilliance to understand this issue.
There are really two critical points:
1. The prefatory clause informs the entire amendment.
2. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century era term of art referring to martial service, and similar to other legal phrases like "hue and cry" that had a specific legal meaning.
When understood in historical context, it is all pretty clear what the framers understood the sentence to mean, and the modern tendency to interpret it more broadly is an obviously anachronistic misinterpretation.
But gun people are so emotionally invested that they can't be objective:shrug: