In the discussion thread: Bill Moyers: "NRA turned 2nd amendment into a cruel and deadly hoax" [View all]
Response to magical thyme (Reply #30)
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 08:06 PM
Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)
32. But they have several erroneous points.
Last edited Tue Jul 24, 2012, 08:07 PM - Edit history (1)
"But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
An important thing to note here is that even the dissent agrees that the second amendment protects an individual right.
But on to the errors:
It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.”
Wrong. The second amendment identifies the preservation of the militia as a purpose for keeping and bearing arms. It does not identify it as the only purpose for keeping and bearing arms.
It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias....
Again, militia service is only a reason specified for keeping and bearing arms. It is not specified as being the only reason. Yes, there is no doubt that the founders wanted the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use so that they could serve as military troops if necessary. But that is not the only reason why one should keep and bear arms.
For example, I can say, "I am out of bread; I am going to the store." This does not mean that the only reason I can go to the store is to buy bread.
it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.
Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
...the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time...
It is absolutely absurd to suggest that people can be trusted to keep weapons in their homes for military service, but cannot use those same weapons to protect themselves, their families, their homes, or for hunting.
Especially since they had done all those things with those weapons all along.
I no longer have it in me to defend the second amendment.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#8|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#15|
|magical thyme||Jul 2012||#30|
But they have several erroneous points.
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#32|
|magical thyme||Jul 2012||#34|
|magical thyme||Jul 2012||#31|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#33|
|magical thyme||Jul 2012||#35|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#37|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#7|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#19|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#22|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#9|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#14|
|Fortinbras Armstrong||Jul 2012||#17|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#18|
|Fortinbras Armstrong||Jul 2012||#21|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#23|
|Fortinbras Armstrong||Jul 2012||#24|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#25|
|Fortinbras Armstrong||Jul 2012||#27|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#28|
|Fortinbras Armstrong||Jul 2012||#39|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#40|
|Fortinbras Armstrong||Jul 2012||#42|
|Atypical Liberal||Jul 2012||#43|
Please login to view edit histories.