4 ms·

2A mentions neither persons nor society, but only the defense of a free State, notably the one the founders were in the process of creating: > A well regulated

2A mentions neither persons nor society, but only the defense of a free State, notably the one the founders were in the process of creating: > 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. Arguments about 2A's intent are endless, and given the polarized nature of the debate, also futile.

mieseratte 7y ago
The Militia is the people. The state exists for the welfare of the people. To say it isn’t for the defense of the people is an argument of semantics.
- blueyes 7y ago
  > The Militia is the people. A bold interpretation. Does that include babies and seniors with dementia? They are part of the people by most definitions. Should we allow them to have arms? Hand a .22 pistol to an eight-month old? If not, where do you draw the line? Is a well-regulated militia a very distinct subset of the people? > The state exists for the welfare of the people. Theorists of the state would dispute that, and we have endless examples that contradict you. States generally exist to serve themselves, often at the expense of the people. > To say it isn’t for the defense of the people is an argument of semantics. The interpretation of a foundational text of US democracy is a matter of semantics. Semantics is about what words mean. You say they mean one thing. I happen to disagree with you. So yes, the whole nature of this dispute is semantic, and not in the sense of "semantics are trivial". The gist of the question is in assigning meaning to the words of 2A. And if you think they "just mean something and it's so obvious that no alternative meanings can be discussed," then you are begging the question. 2A explicitly says it is in defense of a state, not a people.

4 ms·

2A mentions neither persons nor society, but only the defense of a free State, notably the one the founders were in the process of creating: > A well regulated

by blueyes 7y ago

mieseratte 7y ago
The Militia is the people. The state exists for the welfare of the people. To say it isn’t for the defense of the people is an argument of semantics.
- blueyes 7y ago
  > The Militia is the people. A bold interpretation. Does that include babies and seniors with dementia? They are part of the people by most definitions. Should we allow them to have arms? Hand a .22 pistol to an eight-month old? If not, where do you draw the line? Is a well-regulated militia a very distinct subset of the people? > The state exists for the welfare of the people. Theorists of the state would dispute that, and we have endless examples that contradict you. States generally exist to serve themselves, often at the expense of the people. > To say it isn’t for the defense of the people is an argument of semantics. The interpretation of a foundational text of US democracy is a matter of semantics. Semantics is about what words mean. You say they mean one thing. I happen to disagree with you. So yes, the whole nature of this dispute is semantic, and not in the sense of "semantics are trivial". The gist of the question is in assigning meaning to the words of 2A. And if you think they "just mean something and it's so obvious that no alternative meanings can be discussed," then you are begging the question. 2A explicitly says it is in defense of a state, not a people.