What right is the amendment about? The right to keep and bear arms.
Whose right is it? The people.
What shall be done with this right? It shall not be infringed.
The rest only explains the reason why the amendment was written and doesn’t alter the above facts. Let’s rewrite it a bit to be more understandable:
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
Is it the right of the well balanced breakfast, or the right of the people, in this case, to keep and eat food? Of course, it is the right of the people. What shall be done with it? It shall not be infringed upon. If you dictate to me what food I am allowed to store in my cupboards and in what circumstances I am allowed to eat it, you are infringing upon my right to keep and eat food.
No, it’s definitely this gun nut arguing the intent of a law does not matter.
We know what a militia is for. We know why randos owning guns was necessary, to raise a militia. But we don’t do that anymore. We have a standing army. The second amendment might as well say “slave revolts are dangerous, so everybody’s gotta get armed.”
But this guy’s trying to pretend the need for food must be exactly as important as his need for guns, and that nobody will notice his analogy friggin’ blows.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that “the need for food must be exactly as important” as my need for guns. I used different wording to illustrate that the right is granted to the people, not the militia. That you don’t understand the Second Amendment, even when reworded so that even a kindergartner would understand it, is telling.
Says someone ignoring half the sentence. The stated rationale, right up-front, is ‘because the government needs a militia.’
There is no other reason to include them in the sentence. Otherwise it’s “bananas being yellow, free speech.” Like any part of the declaration of rights is decorative.
I get it, you’re an individualist, you won’t find me arguing against an individuals right to own guns; however I disagree with your analysis. Your interpretation of “infringed” seems to be “anything preventing.” Well-regulated in the context of the 2nd amendment implies the imposition of proper training and discipline. This has actually already been decided.
DC v. Heller (which ruled on the individual right to bear arms in 2008) states:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
Laws in the US aren’t written by Merriam-Webster, if they were we’d have a lot fewer cases as lawyers wouldn’t argue the meaning of words.
The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd amendment is not carte Blanche to own whatever you like. You’re like a typical republican, absolutely unwilling to compromise or meet in the middle. It’s your way or the highway. Let’s see how that works out for you over the next few decades.
Sure thing, bud. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Don’t forget the “well regulated” part.
The rest only explains the reason why the amendment was written and doesn’t alter the above facts. Let’s rewrite it a bit to be more understandable:
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
Is it the right of the well balanced breakfast, or the right of the people, in this case, to keep and eat food? Of course, it is the right of the people. What shall be done with it? It shall not be infringed upon. If you dictate to me what food I am allowed to store in my cupboards and in what circumstances I am allowed to eat it, you are infringing upon my right to keep and eat food.
If your food isn’t for breakfast, that law has nothing to do with it.
Invoking other arguments for eating would be a fallacy. Your own stupid analogy just says: breakfast.
Debating this with you is obviously pointless. Nowhere does the amendment state that arms are only to be used within a militia.
‘Because an army is necessary to maintain democracy, people should have guns.’
The whole thing is one sentence long, and there’s only one stated reason in that sentence.
Who’s to say what food is breakfast food? I kinda think that’s part of the point being made here.
No, it’s definitely this gun nut arguing the intent of a law does not matter.
We know what a militia is for. We know why randos owning guns was necessary, to raise a militia. But we don’t do that anymore. We have a standing army. The second amendment might as well say “slave revolts are dangerous, so everybody’s gotta get armed.”
But this guy’s trying to pretend the need for food must be exactly as important as his need for guns, and that nobody will notice his analogy friggin’ blows.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that “the need for food must be exactly as important” as my need for guns. I used different wording to illustrate that the right is granted to the people, not the militia. That you don’t understand the Second Amendment, even when reworded so that even a kindergartner would understand it, is telling.
Says someone ignoring half the sentence. The stated rationale, right up-front, is ‘because the government needs a militia.’
There is no other reason to include them in the sentence. Otherwise it’s “bananas being yellow, free speech.” Like any part of the declaration of rights is decorative.
I get it, you’re an individualist, you won’t find me arguing against an individuals right to own guns; however I disagree with your analysis. Your interpretation of “infringed” seems to be “anything preventing.” Well-regulated in the context of the 2nd amendment implies the imposition of proper training and discipline. This has actually already been decided.
DC v. Heller (which ruled on the individual right to bear arms in 2008) states:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
It’s not my interpretation of “infringed”. It’s the Merriam-Webster definition of the word.
Laws in the US aren’t written by Merriam-Webster, if they were we’d have a lot fewer cases as lawyers wouldn’t argue the meaning of words.
The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd amendment is not carte Blanche to own whatever you like. You’re like a typical republican, absolutely unwilling to compromise or meet in the middle. It’s your way or the highway. Let’s see how that works out for you over the next few decades.
Right, like how voter registration infringes on the right to vote.