3 ms·

Why did you start with the first phrase of the first amendment, redact the rest of that amendment and the beginning of the second, and then misquote the remaind

Why did you start with the first phrase of the first amendment, redact the rest of that amendment and the beginning of the second, and then misquote the remainder? "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." Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years.

Geisterde 3y ago
Why do we pretend that organizationally we exist in the same environment as when they penned the constitution? The people were the militia, and a free state implies the freedom of the people, not the government.
CamperBob2 3y ago
Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years. It would help if someone could find another phrase in the Bill of Rights that refers to, or even alludes to, the primacy of the rights of the state (whether "Congress" or a collective state-sanctioned "militia") over those of the citizenry. There don't seem to be any such phrases, which lends a lot of credence to those who argue that the preface to the Second Amendment is just that -- prefatory, with no functional or prescriptive aspect whatsoever. The Bill of Rights is simply the wrong place to look for rules that grant, rather than restrict, governmental authority.
Terr_ 3y ago
I have a pet theory which tends to annoy both major sides (not necessarily a sign of quality, but an interesting property) and it rests on three facts: 1. In the beginning everything in the Federal Constitution--and all the amendments--were understood to be only a restriction on the Federal government. 2. Many restrictions on the federal government were created out of states' concerns about it "going bad" and trying to ensure their own autonomy was protected. 3. The Second Amendment was drafted during the Articles of Confederation, at time when every state was required to support their own state-militia with arms/materiel, including guns-on-wheels that could be pulled by a horse, and the legislature had to appoint the upper-ranks. So in combination, I argue the Second Amendment was wrongly "incorporated", abusing its original legislative intent of preserving a degree of state military autonomy. So on one hand, that means individual states can impose much stronger restrictions if they want, and on the other hand the federal government can't complain if your state lets you tow around a flak-cannon behind your truck.
- Geisterde 3y ago
  Perfectly reasonable in my book. Honestly for me its less important the guns themselves, ive never owned a functional firearm in my life, its everything else that gets regulated along with it. I remember doing some surface research on building a drone with an IR camera and basically every solution had low FPS, digging into it, the federal government restricts the sale of IR camera chips capable of producing high resolution/high fps, its a 'weapons technology'. Encryption is considered a weapons technology too, your ability to freely communicate over the internet plays second fiddle to the interests of the national security state. The idea that the government can restrict something on the basis that it could be used to create a weapon is the problem, that is insane.

Geisterde 3y ago

Why do we pretend that organizationally we exist in the same environment as when they penned the constitution? The people were the militia, and a free state implies the freedom of the people, not the government.

CamperBob2 3y ago

Grammarians have been puzzling over this text for many years. It would help if someone could find another phrase in the Bill of Rights that refers to, or even alludes to, the primacy of the rights of the state (whether "Congress" or a collective state-sanctioned "militia") over those of the citizenry. There don't seem to be any such phrases, which lends a lot of credence to those who argue that the preface to the Second Amendment is just that -- prefatory, with no functional or prescriptive aspect whatsoever. The Bill of Rights is simply the wrong place to look for rules that grant, rather than restrict, governmental authority.

Terr_ 3y ago

I have a pet theory which tends to annoy both major sides (not necessarily a sign of quality, but an interesting property) and it rests on three facts: 1. In the beginning everything in the Federal Constitution--and all the amendments--were understood to be only a restriction on the Federal government. 2. Many restrictions on the federal government were created out of states' concerns about it "going bad" and trying to ensure their own autonomy was protected. 3. The Second Amendment was drafted during the Articles of Confederation, at time when every state was required to support their own state-militia with arms/materiel, including guns-on-wheels that could be pulled by a horse, and the legislature had to appoint the upper-ranks. So in combination, I argue the Second Amendment was wrongly "incorporated", abusing its original legislative intent of preserving a degree of state military autonomy. So on one hand, that means individual states can impose much stronger restrictions if they want, and on the other hand the federal government can't complain if your state lets you tow around a flak-cannon behind your truck.

Geisterde 3y ago
Perfectly reasonable in my book. Honestly for me its less important the guns themselves, ive never owned a functional firearm in my life, its everything else that gets regulated along with it. I remember doing some surface research on building a drone with an IR camera and basically every solution had low FPS, digging into it, the federal government restricts the sale of IR camera chips capable of producing high resolution/high fps, its a 'weapons technology'. Encryption is considered a weapons technology too, your ability to freely communicate over the internet plays second fiddle to the interests of the national security state. The idea that the government can restrict something on the basis that it could be used to create a weapon is the problem, that is insane.