Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The 2nd Amendment crystal clear or as clear as muddy water? [View all]SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)Believe it or not I feel you and I agree more than you think, I am to a great extent playing devil's advocate.
But, to some extent the language has changed. For many applications people were white men for an example, although we know arms means weapons it is not the common use today, and bear us usually thought of as an animal not presenting or displaying something.
If you don't mind I will apply the answer some have applies to my questions to show why for some it is not so simple.
What is the 21st century version of a 1780's militia? For some this is the National Guard. It is independent to each state, which causes me hesitation when they are called to action over seas, but that is another subject. It is regulated. For some militia is the groups which are arming themselves to fight against our own country if ever needed, they are not regulated. Others would say we don't have anything even remotely close to the militia from the 1780's and good, bad or indifferent at some point it was decided that we needed to have a full time military and eliminated the need of the militia. Some say the new militia is the military.
What is well regulated? First what is regulated? The militia or the arms? Second, what is well? How far can you go?
The does bearing arms require being in a militia? Some have said since there is a comma between the second and third part of the sentence, bearing arms is tied directly to the first thought of the militia thus no militia no arms. Others, say there should be a period between the second and third part making the militia part separate from the arms part. Some feel the first and fourth parts are what are grouped together and the second and third are contingent on having the militia. I once heard an English Professor talk for more than an hour on how the comma placement adds confusion to the argument and changes the meaning. And he was teaching comma placement and wasn't taking any sides in the gun argument. (As I am sure you can tell I still don't have comma placement down pat)
What is bear? Should bear be concealed or exposed.
What are arms? Though some feel the founding fathers were smart enough to imagine the fully automatic weapons we have today, others feel they couldn't have possibly imagined the weapons they had would evolve much.
What is infringed? Can you regulate and not infringe? And, back to the comma placement what is not to be infringed?
Ultimately for many it isn't simple, if it were why is anyone debating this amendment or would it even make it to the Supreme Court much less not have 9-0 decisions.
As I started, I think you and I agree much more than I am giving the impression. I do feel we have the right to own guns. I feel some regulations are reasonable but should not be excessive. I would also like some common sense applied to the creation of these regulation. I am really moderate on the subject and cannot align myself with either side in this argument.
Thanks for hearing me out and for allowing us to have an intelligent, civil exchange of opinions. If more people conducted themselves this way this may no longer be a divisive issue.