Second amendment

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I'm not going to go in depth with my interpretation because, again, if the Supreme Court can't make a decision whatever debate is had on this thread is absolutely meaningless. Obviously, the well regulated militia portion is where the debate lies, and I feel that the intent was to not infringe on the rights to bear arms when a militia is needed, not if a militia is needed. But it really doesn't matter, what someone thought 250 years ago doesn't necessarily make sense today. I don't care how well regulated a militia is, in the case of any kind of fight with the government any militia will be quickly crushed by the armed forces, so militias aren't even really relevant.

The comment about the AR isn't really about it being altered or concealed. It's the same idea as with a sawed off shotgun, what purpose does a law abiding citizen have for one, I don't think entertainment is a good enough answer.

I've said in several threads before, though I'm still accused of it, I don't want guns to be banned. I enjoy shooting guns in an appropriate setting. It's fun to shoot, but my entertainment is not important enough to justify widespread ownership of a tool that's only purpose is to kill.

This is why I wanted to hear people interpret the second amendment and tell me exactly what they think it says. Because I don’t think the debate is about the “well-regulated militia.” The debate is about the words around that phrase, which nobody talks about.
The amendment could say everybody has the right to own guns so that they can form a well-regulated militia, if need be.
Or it could say that only people in a well regulated militia have the right to own guns.
Both use the phrase “well regulated militia.” It’s the words around it that matter. So i’d like to hear an interpretation and justification, much the way I did in my initial post. Obviously your not obligated to do so, but I haven’t seen anybody do so yet.

And the legal use of an Ar-15 would be defense. Whether that’s your country or home.

The issue of sawing off a shotgun is that it is being altered, seemingly only for nefarious purposes. This would be akin to filing the numbers off your gun. There’s no reason for a law abiding citizen to do such a thing.
And it’s still illegal to saw off a shotgun, unless you officially register it as an sbs beforehand

 

[pred]

People always go after the AR15, but don’t realize it’s one of the most popular guns in the US, especially due to its versatility. Multiple calibers can be used ranging from a .22 all the way up to a single shot .50. It’s also one of the most popular hunting rifles due to this.

 

[IntactMale]

I only mentioned the AR-15 because its the name of a gun that I know and its generally a gun that anyone is able to own. I don't know the names of too many models of guns, so it would make a lot of sense that I would name one of the most popular guns.

I'm not going to elaborate on my interpretation of the second amendment. I already explained that the Supreme Court can agree on an interpretation and that whatever that interpretation is is kind of irrelevant due to the changes in technology and society over the past 250 years.

Any gun can be used for nefarious purposes, whether its altered or not. There is precedent for outlawing certain types of guns because of their nefarious use. I don't see any reason why any other gun shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I only mentioned the AR-15 because its the name of a gun that I know and its generally a gun that anyone is able to own. I don't know the names of too many models of guns, so it would make a lot of sense that I would name one of the most popular guns.

I'm not going to elaborate on my interpretation of the second amendment. I already explained that the Supreme Court can agree on an interpretation and that whatever that interpretation is is kind of irrelevant due to the changes in technology and society over the past 250 years.

Any gun can be used for nefarious purposes, whether its altered or not. There is precedent for outlawing certain types of guns because of their nefarious use. I don't see any reason why any other gun shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny.

Any car can be used for nefarious purposes. That’s not a reason to ban anything. The question of the sawed off shotgun is whether any law abiding citizen would have use for it.

It’s like a crack pipe. What possible use would a law abinging citizen have for a crack pipe? Certainly even more dangerous drugs can be administered through a syringe, but there are also legal uses for a syringe. So syringes are legal and crack pipes aren’t.
The shotgun example is about whether it has a legal use, not about how deadly it is.

There’s a separate debate about banning extremely deadly weapons. Certainly we don’t want to sell bombs or rpg’s To the public, but that’s a seperate debate from the shotgun example You cited. Don’t confuse the two.

And you don’t have to explain your interpretation, but I started this thread so somebody might explain an altenate view. I hear so many people quote “militia” as if it somehow refutes the right to bear arms, but I haven’t seen anybody actually explain it or actually interpret the amendment in that way.

 

[IntactMale]

Any car can be used for nefarious purposes. That’s not a reason to ban anything. The question of the sawed off shotgun is whether any law abiding citizen would have use for it.

It’s like a crack pipe. What possible use would a law abinging citizen have for a crack pipe? Certainly even more dangerous drugs can be administered through a syringe, but there are also legal uses for a syringe. So syringes are legal and crack pipes aren’t.
The shotgun example is about whether it has a legal use, not about how deadly it is.

There’s a separate debate about banning extremely deadly weapons. Certainly we don’t want to sell bombs or rpg’s To the public, but that’s a seperate debate from the shotgun example You cited. Don’t confuse the two.

And you don’t have to explain your interpretation, but I started this thread so somebody might explain an altenate view. I hear so many people quote “militia” as if it somehow refutes the right to bear arms, but I haven’t seen anybody actually explain it or actually interpret the amendment in that way.

I'm not saying any weapon should or should not be banned. I am saying that there is precedent for weapons being banned because they are determined to only have nefarious purposes. You can probably make an argument that there is a reason for a law abiding citizen to have and use a sawed off shotgun, but that's not the point.

I'm not confusing the two, maybe you are confused and think the Supreme Court is confusing the two. But why wouldn't you want people to have bombs or rpgs, you could use those to defend yourself and your family. You're drawing the same line, you're just drawing it at a different point.

I've already explained my thoughts on interpreting the second amendment, I'm not going to do it again.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I'm not saying any weapon should or should not be banned. I am saying that there is precedent for weapons being banned because they are determined to only have nefarious purposes. You can probably make an argument that there is a reason for a law abiding citizen to have and use a sawed off shotgun, but that's not the point.

I'm not confusing the two, maybe you are confused and think the Supreme Court is confusing the two. But why wouldn't you want people to have bombs or rpgs, you could use those to defend yourself and your family. You're drawing the same line, you're just drawing it at a different point.

I've already explained my thoughts on interpreting the second amendment, I'm not going to do it again.

Exactly. We draw the line at different points. People try to act like any issue is black and white when we live in a world of grey. There’s no right or wrong answer. There’s just a number of best options.
It’s my opinion that we need to be sufficiently armed to defend ourselves in a threat to liberty. I think semi auto rifles are enough for that. I feel that we’re enough of a threat that a government wouldn’t forcefully subjugate us.
I know many people think we’d be so outgunned by an army that we might as well just give up our right now, but take a look at history. Being outgunned doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal. The British were far more organized and better equipped during the revolution. We were much better equipped during Vietnam. We’re much better equipped than ISIS, and they didn’t go down so easy. Also look at the size of our country compared to those examples and the size of our population. If any govenment foreign or domestic were to take on our citizens on our land that would be a bitch of a war

Also nobody, including you, has interpreted the words of the amendment in this thread in a different way than me. All you did was criticize an interpretation while failing to provide your own.
If you’d like to contribute, just quote the amendment and interpret it below the quote

 

[IntactMale]

Exactly. We draw the line at different points. People try to act like any issue is black and white when we live in a world of grey. There’s no right or wrong answer. There’s just a number of best options.
It’s my opinion that we need to be sufficiently armed to defend ourselves in a threat to liberty. I think semi auto rifles are enough for that. I feel that we’re enough of a threat that a government wouldn’t forcefully subjugate us.
I know many people think we’d be so outgunned by an army that we might as well just give up our right now, but take a look at history. Being outgunned doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal. The British were far more organized and better equipped during the revolution. We were much better equipped during Vietnam. We’re much better equipped than ISIS, and they didn’t go down so easy. Also look at the size of our country compared to those examples and the size of our population. If any govenment foreign or domestic were to take on our citizens on our land that would be a bitch of a war

Also nobody, including you, has interpreted the words of the amendment in this thread in a different way than me. All you did was criticize an interpretation while failing to provide your own.
If you’d like to contribute, just quote the amendment and interpret it below the quote

I did not criticize your interpretation. I said that if the Supreme Court can't come to a decision on this then anyone's interpretation is pointless. I also said that I don't care about the second amendment that much because guns and society have changed to dramatically since it was written. These are just facts, not criticism.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I did not criticize your interpretation. I said that if the Supreme Court can't come to a decision on this then anyone's interpretation is pointless. I also said that I don't care about the second amendment that much because guns and society have changed to dramatically since it was written. These are just facts, not criticism.

So why are you here? It’s like you walked into a strip club just so could be disgusted by all the naked people.
This is purely academic. I want to understand the opposing viewpoint. If you don’t want to explain it to me that’s fine. But it’s not pointless. I want to understand people who think differently than me. That’s as noble a pursuit as you’re likely to find on this site.

And clearly the second amendment isn’t the final word on the subject. I acknowledged that multiple times. But it is at least a word on the subject and a place to start. There are other threads on gun law that would be more appropriate for you.
Thanks for your input anyway. I know your not the only person to misunderstand the point of this thread. Almost nobody here has actually discussed the amendment. I don’t foresee that happening at this point

 

[MisterB]

I think before one labors to determine what something written 250 years ago means, one needs to consider the time in which it was written. Word meanings/connotations have changed; they've morphed over the past 250 years. So has the way we punctuate our writings. American English today is different than it was 250 years ago.

Looking at what was written 250 years ago through today's lenses is more than likely not going to capture what the true intent of what they meant at the time it was written. We can speculate what they meant. We can place emphasis on the amendment depending on how one interprets the comma placement. We can review Constitutional legislative histories.

But the fact of the matter is simple: those who wrote the amendment 250 years ago had no concept of what America would like like today. They drafted that amendment for the times they lived in. Unlike many who try to interpret it based on the times we live in today.

And I think that's the essence of why any Second Amendment Gun Debate is so difficult. Because each person involved today comes to the discussion with his/her own preconceived notions/prejudices/life experiences/whatevers. Applying their 2019 values and morals on trying to determine what we think they meant 250 years ago.

Good luck with that!

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I think before one labors to determine what something written 250 years ago means, one needs to consider the time in which it was written. Word meanings/connotations have changed; they've morphed over the past 250 years. So has the way we punctuate our writings. American English today is different than it was 250 years ago.

Looking at what was written 250 years ago through today's lenses is more than likely not going to capture what the true intent of what they meant at the time it was written. We can speculate what they meant. We can place emphasis on the amendment depending on how one interprets the comma placement. We can review Constitutional legislative histories.

But the fact of the matter is simple: those who wrote the amendment 250 years ago had no concept of what America would like like today. They drafted that amendment for the times they lived in. Unlike many who try to interpret it based on the times we live in today.

And I think that's the essence of why any Second Amendment Gun Debate is so difficult. Because each person involved today comes to the discussion with his/her own preconceived notions/prejudices/life experiences/whatevers. Applying their 2019 values and morals on trying to determine what we think they meant 250 years ago.

Good luck with that!

Obviously context is important. But I would still like to hear the different ways people interpret it. I still haven’t heard an interpretation different than my own and I know there are definitely people here who think differently than me.

 

[IntactMale]

So why are you here? It’s like you walked into a strip club just so could be disgusted by all the naked people.
This is purely academic. I want to understand the opposing viewpoint. If you don’t want to explain it to me that’s fine. But it’s not pointless. I want to understand people who think differently than me. That’s as noble a pursuit as you’re likely to find on this site.

And clearly the second amendment isn’t the final word on the subject. I acknowledged that multiple times. But it is at least a word on the subject and a place to start. There are other threads on gun law that would be more appropriate for you.
Thanks for your input anyway. I know your not the only person to misunderstand the point of this thread. Almost nobody here has actually discussed the amendment. I don’t foresee that happening at this point

It's not noble of you to claim that I am criticizing your opinion when I'm obviously not.

I've explained why I don't think the interpretation of the second amendment is important several times. That is, in and of itself, and interpretation of the second amendment. Obviously you don't like that, so stop replying to me and I'll stop commenting on this thread.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

It's not noble of you to claim that I am criticizing your opinion when I'm obviously not.

I've explained why I don't think the interpretation of the second amendment is important several times. That is, in and of itself, and interpretation of the second amendment. Obviously you don't like that, so stop replying to me and I'll stop commenting on this thread.

You didn’t answer the question. You avoided it.
You said the Supreme Court can’t decide so it’s pointless to talk about. I can’t explain to you how wrong that way of thinking is. You’re basically saying: “I’m not going to think, because somebody already thought for me. And you shouldn’t think either, otherwise you’re an idiot.” That’s such a dangerously ignorant philosophy.
And I know I’m feeding a butthurt troll here, but I tried being polite from the start and you showed no such consideration

 

[IntactMale]

You didn’t answer the question. You avoided it.
You said the Supreme Court can’t decide so it’s pointless to talk about. I can’t explain to you how wrong that way of thinking is. You’re basically saying: “I’m not going to think, because somebody already thought for me. And you shouldn’t think either, otherwise you’re an idiot.” That’s such a dangerously ignorant philosophy.
And I know I’m feeding a butthurt troll here, but I tried being polite from the start and you showed no such consideration

I'm not a troll, nor am I "butthurt." I've been perfectly polite to you, you just don't like what I'm saying.

I responded to the post in the way I feel is most appropriate. I don't think that the second amendment is worth interpreting. And I've explained why several times. I actually thought about that, I know you haven't because it doesn't suit your goal of creating this thread, which is just to be argumentative. Again I THINK that the second amendment isn't worth interpreting because the words of people living in a completely different society with completely different technology cannot represent a reasonable assessment of the scenario today. See the word "think" in there? I thought about that, maybe you should try to think about that instead of accusing others of not thinking. There is nothing dangerous about my philosophy, which is to determine what makes sense for the world we actually live in. What is dangerous is giving guns to everyone because some guy 250 years ago said it was okay.

Now I've explained it at least 5 times. Its your turn to think about what I've said instead of getting angry that I'm not interpreting it the way you did.

Stop quoting me, and I won't respond to this thread anymore. I've explained that too and yet you keep quoting me, that makes you the troll. And the whining is what makes you "butthurt."

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I'm not a troll, nor am I "butthurt." I've been perfectly polite to you, you just don't like what I'm saying.

I responded to the post in the way I feel is most appropriate. I don't think that the second amendment is worth interpreting. And I've explained why several times. I actually thought about that, I know you haven't because it doesn't suit your goal of creating this thread, which is just to be argumentative. Again I THINK that the second amendment isn't worth interpreting because the words of people living in a completely different society with completely different technology cannot represent a reasonable assessment of the scenario today. See the word "think" in there? I thought about that, maybe you should try to think about that instead of accusing others of not thinking. There is nothing dangerous about my philosophy, which is to determine what makes sense for the world we actually live in. What is dangerous is giving guns to everyone because some guy 250 years ago said it was okay.

Now I've explained it at least 5 times. Its your turn to think about what I've said instead of getting angry that I'm not interpreting it the way you did.

Stop quoting me, and I won't respond to this thread anymore. I've explained that too and yet you keep quoting me, that makes you the troll. And the whining is what makes you "butthurt."

The point of the thread if you read the prompt is for alternate interpretations. Not for people to say that interpretations are pointless.
And it is dangerous to dissuade people from thinking, which is what you’re doing

 

[IntactMale]

The point of the thread if you read the prompt is for alternate interpretations. Not for people to say that interpretations are pointless.
And it is dangerous to dissuade people from thinking, which is what you’re doing

I'm not dissuading anyone from anything, I didn't tell anyone to avoid interpreting the second amendment if that's what they wanted to do. I am offering my interpretation, which is that it is useless. You don't like that, I understand, but you can't change it. I suggest you stop quoting me if you really don't want me to write on this thread anymore, but its becoming obvious that that is exactly what you want. The whole purpose of this thread was for arguments, and you dare call other people trolls.

Now you can keep saying that you think what I think it dangerous, but it changes nothing. I understand what your opinion is, and I don't care, so stop talking to me about it. If you keep quoting me then you really are proving that you are the troll, not that it was ever in question.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

The Supreme Court can't make a decision on how to interpret the second amendment. I doubt anyone on this site is going to be able to pick apart the issue with more detail than the court, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the meaning is or should be. No one knows, it is impossible to know.

You’re very first post was aimed at dissuading people from taking part in the thread. Basically saying it was pointless. Dissuading people from thinking for themselves

 

[pred]

I'm not dissuading anyone from anything, I didn't tell anyone to avoid interpreting the second amendment if that's what they wanted to do. I am offering my interpretation, which is that it is useless. You don't like that, I understand, but you can't change it. I suggest you stop quoting me if you really don't want me to write on this thread anymore, but its becoming obvious that that is exactly what you want. The whole purpose of this thread was for arguments, and you dare call other people trolls.

Now you can keep saying that you think what I think it dangerous, but it changes nothing. I understand what your opinion is, and I don't care, so stop talking to me about it. If you keep quoting me then you really are proving that you are the troll, not that it was ever in question.

You really can’t stand not getting the last word in can you?

 

[IntactMale]

You’re very first post was aimed at dissuading people from taking part in the thread. Basically saying it was pointless. Dissuading people from thinking for themselves

No, it wasn't. It was an expression of my opinion. If you can't determine why those are different things then I can't help you.

 

[IntactMale]

You really can’t stand not getting the last word in can you?

When you quote someone on a forum you are requesting their response. I don't know why you don't understand that. If you don't want my input, don't ask for it.

And you can go fuck yourself, since I know it hurts you to hear that.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

No, it wasn't. It was an expression of my opinion. If you can't determine why those are different things then I can't help you.

Your opinion was that the thread was pointless. So forgive me if I’m hostile towards somebody who came to a thread to ridicule it and offer nothing. And then thinks he has the right to the last word. This is my thread if want to fuck with u til the end of time I will. The thread hasn’t produced anything else anyway. So fuck it