More guns the way to go? Some thoughs.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't it have been written "the right of the states to keep and bear arms"...instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? I think the argument to which you are referring indeed claims that the right is contingent uponm militias, but does not further claim that those militias must be under the control of the state government. As above, if they wanted it to refer to the right of "states", they would have used that word instead of using the word "people".

edited:

It seems to me that if the text is referencing the right to bear arms solely for the purposes of a militia, it is still referring to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for such purpose: not the right of states to so keep and bear.


[/ QUOTE ]

John - It's honestly not an argument I am versed with, it was mentioned in passing in my Con Law class, where the 2nd Amendment got very little face time. I was just pointing out that it was out there.

My reading of the amendment is that people should be able to bear arms so that they can assemble into a well regulated militia should the need arise.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
My reading of the amendment is that people should be able to bear arms so that they can assemble into a well regulated militia should the need arise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or to overthrow their government.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...there is a valid constitutional argument (based on the constitution's text) that asserts the 2nd Amendment only protects the states' right to have militias, and does not apply to individuals. It's certainly an argument with merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't it have been written "the right of the states to keep and bear arms"...instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? I think the argument to which you are referring indeed claims that the right is contingent upon militias, but does not further claim that those militias must be under the control of the state government. As above, if they wanted it to refer to the right of "states", they would have used that word instead of using the word "people".

edited:

It seems to me that if the text is referencing the right to bear arms solely for the purposes of a militia, it is still referring to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for such purpose: not the right of states to so keep and bear.


[/ QUOTE ]

John - It's honestly not an argument I am versed with, it was mentioned in passing in my Con Law class, where the 2nd Amendment got very little face time. I was just pointing out that it was out there.

My reading of the amendment is that people should be able to bear arms so that they can assemble into a well regulated militia should the need arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it was discussed at length in another thread or two. I just thought worth pointing out something which I don't remember being pointed out in those threads, and which your post made me think of: that such a reading of the "right to keep and bear" clause (with heavy emphasis on militia purpose) would apply to the People rather than the several States, since the word "People" is used instead of the word "States".

Therefore, in my view, even if that argument is conclusive (which I don't think it fully is), and if the right to keep and bear is solely for purposes of a militia, it is still the People (not the States) that are guaranteed the right to keep and bear for that purpose. So in effect, even that strongly militia-based interpretation means that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, since the right of the People to keep and bear arms (for purposes of a militia) shall not be infringed.

Hopefully Andy Fox will take note of this post. Maybe it is worthy of another thread to discuss precisely this perspective on the "militia purpose" argument.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That leaves us with morality. And it's pretty clear - you're either for violent intervention in other people's business or you're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therein lies the crux to political discourse in general. Either you believe one side, or you believe the other, and rarely do the other side's arguments sway your opinion. Glad we spent all this time, though [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying you're for violent intervention in other people's business?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm... not quite sure how you draw this conclusion from my quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you agreed with pvn's sentiment and implied that you're on the gun control side of the argument regardless of anything you read that favors the other side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never really agreed with that specific sentiment.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

It's not as simple as either your for violent intervention or not. You can either 1) see it as this simple an issue (you) or 2) see it as more than 2 dimensional (me). As I've stated previously, all people are for or against violent intervention at certain extremes (including yourself). It's a matter of to what extent. It's not a yes or no question, it's a where on the scale are you question. I find it funny you can take a quote that says "I disagree with you" and interpret it to mean "I agree with you".

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That leaves us with morality. And it's pretty clear - you're either for violent intervention in other people's business or you're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

And therein lies the crux to political discourse in general. Either you believe one side, or you believe the other, and rarely do the other side's arguments sway your opinion. Glad we spent all this time, though [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying you're for violent intervention in other people's business?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm... not quite sure how you draw this conclusion from my quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're either for violent intervention in other people's business or you're not.

Well, which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement is insanely vague. Everyone is for violent intervention on some level, and against it on some. The question is to what degree.

For instance, if someone is holding a knife to your throat, and you have a gun in your hand, I'm sure you'll find a reason for violent intervention in other people's business (ie his business of trying to kill you).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply stopping his violent intervention in *your* business. killing you isn't "his" business, unless you think it somehow dosen't concern you, in which case, yes, your action would be violent intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

"His business" is trying to take your money and/or end your life. You're simply arguing semantics, without acknowledging "my" and "your" business intersect and overlap everyday.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if someone is holding a knife to your throat, and you have a gun in your hand, I'm sure you'll find a reason for violent intervention in other people's business (ie his business of trying to kill you).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply stopping his violent intervention in *your* business. killing you isn't "his" business, unless you think it somehow dosen't concern you, in which case, yes, your action would be violent intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

"His business" is trying to take your money and/or end your life. You're simply arguing semantics, without acknowledging "my" and "your" business intersect and overlap everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're the one arguing semantics. Once you get me involved, it's *my* business.

And yes, people's business overlaps every day; that says nothing about whether those overlaps (or collisions, depending on how you look at it) are voluntary or not.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if someone is holding a knife to your throat, and you have a gun in your hand, I'm sure you'll find a reason for violent intervention in other people's business (ie his business of trying to kill you).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply stopping his violent intervention in *your* business. killing you isn't "his" business, unless you think it somehow dosen't concern you, in which case, yes, your action would be violent intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

"His business" is trying to take your money and/or end your life. You're simply arguing semantics, without acknowledging "my" and "your" business intersect and overlap everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're the one arguing semantics. Once you get me involved, it's *my* business.

And yes, people's business overlaps every day; that says nothing about whether those overlaps (or collisions, depending on how you look at it) are voluntary or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But as long as they overlap, you are necessarily 'for violent intervention into other people's business'. You stated, YOU ARE EITHER FOR VIOLENT INTERVENTION OR YOU OR NOT. Are we now changing the goal posts to allow violent intervention if they impede on your business? To what extent are you allowed to intervene? How powerfully can you intervene? It's not as cut and dried as for against now, is it?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if someone is holding a knife to your throat, and you have a gun in your hand, I'm sure you'll find a reason for violent intervention in other people's business (ie his business of trying to kill you).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply stopping his violent intervention in *your* business. killing you isn't "his" business, unless you think it somehow dosen't concern you, in which case, yes, your action would be violent intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

"His business" is trying to take your money and/or end your life. You're simply arguing semantics, without acknowledging "my" and "your" business intersect and overlap everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're the one arguing semantics. Once you get me involved, it's *my* business.

And yes, people's business overlaps every day; that says nothing about whether those overlaps (or collisions, depending on how you look at it) are voluntary or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But as long as they overlap, you are necessarily for violent intervention into other people's business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that all interactions are violent? Voluntary cooperation is impossible?

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if someone is holding a knife to your throat, and you have a gun in your hand, I'm sure you'll find a reason for violent intervention in other people's business (ie his business of trying to kill you).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply stopping his violent intervention in *your* business. killing you isn't "his" business, unless you think it somehow dosen't concern you, in which case, yes, your action would be violent intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

"His business" is trying to take your money and/or end your life. You're simply arguing semantics, without acknowledging "my" and "your" business intersect and overlap everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're the one arguing semantics. Once you get me involved, it's *my* business.

And yes, people's business overlaps every day; that says nothing about whether those overlaps (or collisions, depending on how you look at it) are voluntary or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But as long as they overlap, you are necessarily for violent intervention into other people's business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that all interactions are violent? Voluntary cooperation is impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn, you have a strange way of reading things and totally misunderstanding them, and drawing conclusions that really aren't there. My sentence does not suggest this at all. I'm saying that even you can find instances where it is necessary to 'violently intervene in another's business'. This has absolutely nothing to do with voluntary cooperation.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, if someone is holding a knife to your throat, and you have a gun in your hand, I'm sure you'll find a reason for violent intervention in other people's business (ie his business of trying to kill you).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're simply stopping his violent intervention in *your* business. killing you isn't "his" business, unless you think it somehow dosen't concern you, in which case, yes, your action would be violent intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

"His business" is trying to take your money and/or end your life. You're simply arguing semantics, without acknowledging "my" and "your" business intersect and overlap everyday.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're the one arguing semantics. Once you get me involved, it's *my* business.

And yes, people's business overlaps every day; that says nothing about whether those overlaps (or collisions, depending on how you look at it) are voluntary or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But as long as they overlap, you are necessarily for violent intervention into other people's business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that all interactions are violent? Voluntary cooperation is impossible?

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn, you have a strange way of reading things and totally misunderstanding them, and drawing conclusions that really aren't there. My sentence does not suggest this at all. I'm saying that even you can find instances where it is necessary to 'violently intervene in another's business'. This has absolutely nothing to do with voluntary cooperation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. Not really, I'm only stopping your intervention in my business. You're free to continue along with your business. You don't have any legitimate claim to my life or my stuff, so that is *not* your business.