Debates
11 Jul 22
13 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidHere is a discussion I pulled off the web...
If Congress decided that every able bodied person was in the militia and that they were adequately armed with a Swiss army knife (remember it is up to Congress to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia," ), what "right" would you have to own a firearm?
The Second Amendment says nothing about a right to personal self-defense. But surely ...[text shortened]... ers believed in such a right; it's just not enumerated. You know, like the right to bodily autonomy.
The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.
Here is another analysis, which seems like the only reasonably way to interpret the second amendment in order for it to have any meaning at all:
Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined. It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
My thinking on this aligns with justice Scalia based on plain understanding of English.
Answer this: If you have no right to own a gun unless you are in a "well regulated militia", what are the "teeth" in the second amendment? The second amendment could be replaced with a completely blank line and it would mean the same thing as you say it means.
My understanding of the rights guaranteed in the second amendment is that it grants "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Your interpretation, when boiled down to actual restraints placed on the government, is that the second amendment guarantees absolutely nothing whatsoever.
As far as bodily autonomy, if we really believed that, wouldn't we be free to seek help getting rid of unwanted same-sex attractions via "conversion therapy"? Wouldn't we have the right to physician assisted suicide? Wouldn't we have the right to take any drug (prescription or not, tested or not)?
We could debate the finer points for days and it has been done over and over on the Internet. Yet I'll restate my point. I am astounded that people can both think both that you're stupid to think the Constitution acknowledges a personal right to keep and bear arms and also stupid to think the Constitution does NOT convey the right to get an abortion.
@techsouth saidAgain, the Constitution doesn't grant you rights. At most, it enumerates a few of pre-existing ones while explicitly stating you have others.
Here is a discussion I pulled off the web...
The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right ...[text shortened]... arms and also [i]stupid to think the Constitution does NOT convey the right to get an abortion.
It's sophistry to separate the two clauses in the Second Amendment; in a society where virtually every able bodied male was required to be in a militia, such an argument is untenable.
What would have been the status of a right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense if the Second Amendment had never been added to the Constitution? Are you saying it would have been non-existent?
There are always going to be debates about the limits of rights, but surely the right to bodily autonomy isn't seriously questioned in a free society. And what could be more intrusive of that right than the State forcing a woman to give birth?
@mott-the-hoople saidStubborn stupidity is still stupidity.
the states have the power to make laws that do not conflict with the US constitution…no amount of 💩weaseling by you will change that.
You have made yourself look like a fool to those that know how the system works.
You might want to take a gander at the 14th Amendment which clarifies that the States cannot interfere with the People's privileges and immunities nor interfere with their life and liberty without "due process of law". CSA type arguments like you are making were never valid, but it's almost hilarious to have someone seriously espousing them more than 150 years after the Civil War.
13 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidOkay, Elon Musk pulled out of the Twitter deal because he suspected that a large percentage of Twitter users were just bots.
Again, the Constitution doesn't grant you rights. At most, it enumerates a few of pre-existing ones while explicitly stating you have others.
It's sophistry to separate the two clauses in the Second Amendment; in a society where virtually every able bodied male was required to be in a militia, such an argument is untenable.
What would have been the status of a righ ...[text shortened]... ociety. And what could be more intrusive of that right than the State forcing a woman to give birth?
As a test of sentience to make sure I'm not arguing with a bot, can you distinguish the following two assertions:
(1) The Constitution, when correctly interpreted, grants the right for a woman to have an abortion, but reasonable people may disagree.
(2) The Constitution, when correctly interpreted, grants the right for a woman to have an abortion, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or dishonest.
And which of these two are we discussing here?
Second test: How is the government limited by the second amendment according to your interpretation?
13 Jul 22
@techsouth saidNeither is correct; the Constitution doesn't grant rights.
Okay, Elon Musk pulled out of the Twitter deal because he suspected that a large percentage of Twitter users were just bots.
As a test of sentience to make sure I'm not arguing with a bot, can you distinguish the following two assertions:
(1) The Constitution, when correctly interpreted, grants the right for a woman to have an abortion, but reasonable people may disag ...[text shortened]... Second test: How is the government limited by the second amendment according to your interpretation?
13 Jul 22
@techsouth saidLMAO! Is that what you consider rational argument?
Pedantry.
Bot.
Since right wingers know so little about the founding principles of this nation, I insist on precision when discussing them.
Dobbs declared that the scope of a woman's right to bodily autonomy is limited to what all-male legislatures in the 19th Century thought proper. Is that "reasonable"? I don't think so.
13 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidEven though something like freedom of speech may be considered a natural right, somehow people in many places and many other times do not and did not have it.
LMAO! Is that what you consider rational argument?
Since right wingers know so little about the founding principles of this nation, I insist on precision when discussing them.
Dobbs declared that the scope of a woman's right to bodily autonomy is limited to what all-male legislatures in the 19th Century thought proper. Is that "reasonable"? I don't think so.
So, I'll try again with the last post, and a few tweaks:
Okay, Elon Musk pulled out of the Twitter deal because he suspected that a large percentage of Twitter users were just bots.
As a test of sentience to make sure I'm not arguing with a bot, can you distinguish the following two assertions:
(1) The Constitution, when correctly interpreted, acknowledges the right for a woman to have an abortion, but reasonable people may disagree.
(2) The Constitution, when correctly interpreted, acknowledges the right for a woman to have an abortion, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or dishonest.
Optional Step: I feel like I've worded these as something a normal person could understand, but perhaps would trip up a "bot". Considering that this is an informal, anonymous forum and I am not only not a lawyer, but don't aspire to be, this should be good enough to engage in a conversation in which neither participant is under indictment, and both participants are here voluntarily (and will have no legal binding on anyone after the conversation is over). But if you want to suggest a more precise wording that does not change the spirit of the assertions and then answer based on a more precise wording, feel free.
And which of these two are we discussing here?
Second test: How is the government limited by the second amendment according to your interpretation?
13 Jul 22
@mott-the-hoople saidCheck out Number Nine.
check out number ten
The People already have unenumerated, inalienable rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights
13 Jul 22
@techsouth saidPeople don't have to be "stupid or dishonest" to believe in an unreasonable position.
Even though something like freedom of speech may be considered a natural right, somehow people in many places and many other times do not and did not have it.
So, I'll try again with the last post, and a few tweaks:
Okay, Elon Musk pulled out of the Twitter deal because he suspected that a large percentage of Twitter users were just bots.
As a test of sentience t ...[text shortened]... Second test: How is the government limited by the second amendment according to your interpretation?
8 SCOTUS justices in the 1872 case of Bradwell v. State upheld an Illinois law which said a woman could not be a lawyer because it would interfere with her "natural" role of wife and mother. AFAIK, no one accused these men of so ruling because they were "stupid" or "dishonest" but few would find such a ruling "reasonable" now. So why should what similarly minded State legislatures did at that time be considered a "reasonable" interpretation of the scope of a woman's bodily autonomy even if we concede the legislators weren't "stupid" or ( at least in passing antiabortion penal laws) "dishonest"?
13 Jul 22
@techsouth saidArms are mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion is not.
Here is a discussion I pulled off the web...
The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right ...[text shortened]... arms and also [i]stupid to think the Constitution does NOT convey the right to get an abortion.
13 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidI'm getting that Marauder does not believe that states should decide issues of abortion. Each state. Separately. So, that premise would be a good place to start. I think that they should.
Stubborn stupidity is still stupidity.
You might want to take a gander at the 14th Amendment which clarifies that the States cannot interfere with the People's privileges and immunities nor interfere with their life and liberty without "due process of law". CSA type arguments like you are making were never valid, but it's almost hilarious to have someone seriously espousing them more than 150 years after the Civil War.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
13 Jul 22
@no1marauder saidstupid ignorant position to take, no matter how you try to twist it, it is just plain stupid
Neither is correct; the Constitution doesn't grant rights.
13 Jul 22
@mott-the-hoople saidTell that to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the rest.
stupid ignorant position to take, no matter how you try to twist it, it is just plain stupid