Reply #30

In the discussion thread: Looking for a well-regulated militia [View all]

Sun Mar 18, 2012, 10:16 PM

X_Digger (13,127 posts)

30. That is the purpose, not the scope.

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I think I'm going to go grocery shopping." -- would you think I'm only buying soda? Do stores only sell soda?

Or.. "Pizza being useful for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- are tomatoes only to be used for pizza sauce?

If you're delving into the minds of the framers as authoritative, then you should look at the writings of the time. You'll find that they expected people to defend themselves with arms, not just use them for militias.

The weren't prescient. They didn't foresee that the language would change. The phrasing was common at the time.

You might as well say, "Chaucer could have saved himself some trouble had he written in modern english.' when you mean, he could have saved *you* some confusion.

They also used 'well-regulated' to mean well functioning. Our modern usage of that word doesn't change the usage it enjoyed when used in 1791.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

102 replies	Author	Time	Post
Looking for a well-regulated militia [View all]	DetlefK	Mar 2012	OP
.....	daleanime	Mar 2012	#1
Oh jeez..	shadowrider	Mar 2012	#2
I don't get your point.	DetlefK	Mar 2012	#7
Well if this is a true post	Drale	Mar 2012	#3
the National Guard is not really a militia	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#6
Well, since you're foreign, let me help..	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#4
Thanks.	DetlefK	Mar 2012	#9
It was never 'widened'- it was always there.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#11
militias still exist	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#18
Yes, it's funny how the only Amendment that has	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#20
Except it isn't new, nor is that construction strange in writings of the time..	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#22
It just strikes me as a little odd	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#27
That is the purpose, not the scope.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#30
Semantic gibberish	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#31
aka, you got nothing.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#32
Not at all	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#35
Again, purpose, not scope.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#37
Again, I fail to see the logic of your premise.	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#43
'Why' does not equal 'how much'.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#50
With all due respect	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#51
No, you missed the point.. you're reading it as a restriction on people, not the government.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#56
No, I'm reading it for the purpose	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#57
'permits the bearing of arms' -- fundamentally wrong	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#61
I don't know where you get this	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#65
Err, I think you need a class on the enlightenment and our system of government...	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#66
A militia can be one person too.	era veteran	Mar 2012	#21
In 1992, a 'militia' saved entire blocks of businesses and residences in koreatown in LA	AtheistCrusader	Mar 2012	#96
Okay...	TheWraith	Mar 2012	#5
Start your own	Ezlivin	Mar 2012	#8
Top Shot is a joke. Throwing hatchets? Grenade Launchers? And the drama and fighting. It is a....	Logical	Mar 2012	#16
I just think it would be great fun to have access	Ezlivin	Mar 2012	#17
I 100% agree. I would love to shoot there. But I wish they could have not dropped to...	Logical	Mar 2012	#19
They're usually done by state	chrisa	Mar 2012	#10
No, that is not the SOLE purpose of the right to keep and bear arms	slackmaster	Mar 2012	#12
which would in turn be regulated by some authority. ??	Tuesday Afternoon	Mar 2012	#13
"The text is very clear"	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#14
I refuse to argue with foreigners	shadowrider	Mar 2012	#15
Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller explains it adequately -- to gun-carrying culture's chagrin.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#23
To who's chagrin?	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#24
If you know anything about Constitutional Law	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#28
What SCOTUS decision did	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#40
I was (inartfully) trying to	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#54
I see, I tend to think Citizens United will be	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#55
Let's hope so.	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#58
Does the fact that you're praising a Scalia decision and criticizing	_ed_	Mar 2012	#36
Stevens is a Republican	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#39
Are you seriously suggesting that Stevens'	_ed_	Mar 2012	#41
Do you support the Brady Campaign?	shadowrider	Mar 2012	#42
He was a Republican in 1975	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#44
Since you're determined to use the genetic fallacy, what about United States v. Jones?	friendly_iconoclast	Mar 2012	#45
I give you Kelo v. City of New London .	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#48
Our interlocutor seems to have left the building...	friendly_iconoclast	Mar 2012	#70
Not really, as I don't simply accept party-line doctrine as gospel.	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#47
Stevens does backflips to deny what's clear as the nose on his face.	X_Digger	Mar 2012	#25
You're absolutely right.	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#29
As usual you come up with the "gun-carrying culture" insult	rl6214	Mar 2012	#33
There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment	krispos42	Mar 2012	#26
In short term, I'll accept those 45 and older leaving guns at home.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#67
Why not women?	krispos42	Mar 2012	#72
Women carriers are usually OK. They aren't trying to prove something to themselves or others.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#73
That's a rather sexist statement...	friendly_iconoclast	Mar 2012	#74
Yes it is. It does demean men who carry and use guns for things far removed from self-defense.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#75
Fine. As long as you don't pretend that your personal experiences represent society at large.	friendly_iconoclast	Mar 2012	#76
As are the aged.	krispos42	Mar 2012	#83
Don't think I'm discriminating - women don't have the same issues as men in this context.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#84
But a far greater percentage of non-white teens are violent criminals.	krispos42	Mar 2012	#86
No, if Martin had been white, he'd still be alive. Try not to "play odds" with your gun.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#87
good lord	Tuesday Afternoon	Mar 2012	#91
But that's ok	shadowrider	Mar 2012	#92
Four random Jurors will allow it. I bet my bottom dollar on it plus, the jurors will add insult to	Tuesday Afternoon	Mar 2012	#93
You are quite right. The text is clear.	DanTex	Mar 2012	#34
"...the intent or proper interpretation of the Second Amendment". Let's ask a Constitutional scholar	friendly_iconoclast	Mar 2012	#49
Nothing more than political pap	COLGATE4	Mar 2012	#52
He's speaking as a politician there, not as a constitutional scholar.	DanTex	Mar 2012	#53
The 3rd Amendment has been adjucated in my lifetime	krispos42	Mar 2012	#62
No, from disarming PEOPLE.	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#63
It might be right of people who are in a well regulated militia, but that is it.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#69
Those militias no longer exist.	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#81
Finally, you got it. We don't need a bunch of armed, but unregulated toters nowadays.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#85
So how do you reconcile the rest of the amendment?	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#88
Read Stevens' dissent in Heller. It's clear.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#90
we have	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#94
Perhaps you could tell me what part of it specifically you are referring to?	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#97
Outstanding post.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#68
Why was it important to prevent the federal government from disarming militias?	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#98
Your position is at odds with EVERYTHING!	Surf Fishing Guru	Mar 2012	#101
If you're foreign	_ed_	Mar 2012	#38
Not so much	gejohnston	Mar 2012	#46
Please list your "sensible gun control" proposals.	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#59
You don't really expect an answer do you?	oneshooter	Mar 2012	#78
Hey, they should be offered the chance to prove their bonafides, and engage in honest debate.	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#79
Still... Waiting... n/t	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#99
The RKBA is an individual right, and need not be connected to any militia.	montanto	Mar 2012	#60
Understanding the second amendment.	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#64
You guys sure have to spin in all directions to get that interpretation of 2nd.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#71
Quite humorous...	Clames	Mar 2012	#77
Yeah, opinion of 5 right wing judges.	Hoyt	Mar 2012	#80
All 9 judges agreed the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#102
Can you muster any specific refutation of what I wrote?	Atypical Liberal	Mar 2012	#82
Bu-bu-but.... "Militia, militia, militia....!"	PavePusher	Mar 2012	#89
If you don't understand, why do you make a positive claim about how the text is clear?	AtheistCrusader	Mar 2012	#95
Your focus is perfectly backwards	Surf Fishing Guru	Mar 2012	#100

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.