guns

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

Clear as mud.

Clear communication is probably the most important skill in my job. I know that if I were trying to communicate what you and Pappy seem to think the drafters of this amendment were trying to communicate, then I'd have a subheading "Well regulated militia" describing what that meant, and another subheading "right to bear arms" describing exactly what that meant and who it was relevant to. Because I know from experience that if you want to communicate 2 separate concepts, including them in a single sentence with just a comma separating them is gonna make a lot of people think that those concepts are somehow interdependent. Whether that was the intent or not.

But sometimes I need to leave things open to interpretation, and in those cases I may deliberately structure my use of language in such a way that it is open to interpretation. So I know what deliberately ambiguous language looks like.

It's all good, I live in a country that has reasonably strict gun laws. I grew up in a house full of guns and I have owned a number of guns myself when I was younger, but then we had one really bad massacre and the people decided that enough was enough. We didn't have anywhere near the gun culture that the US has, obviously, and those who liked guns were seriously outnumbered by those who didn't like massacres.

[odeon]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

#alternativefacts.   

Here's a vid that demonstrates odeot's level of gun knowledge.

[DirtDawg]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

#alternativefacts.   

Here's a vid that demonstrates odeot's level of gun knowledge.

I did know that the NRA sold guns, but I do want that mystery gun that has some kind of special magazine that shoots all the bullets at once.

I would also like to see one of those unloaded gun that still kills people. Definition of an unloaded gun pending.

Oh, and the Supreme Court is wrong.  FFS!

I am thinking of joining the group buy (already over two pallets of magazines for just one gun club in Indiana that I know of) to make sure that the last of the "full capacity" magazines go to deserving hands.

These types in your vid feel sorry for me/us because we feel a need to protect ourselves, but when this shit they think only happens to others because they have guns, actually happens to them, instead of hoping some else calls 911, I will be the one who calls 911.

[odeon]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

#alternativefacts.   

Here's a vid that demonstrates odeot's level of gun knowledge.

Not going to watch your video. Why not use your own words, just this once?

[DirtDawg]

Just a courtesy call, but the vid is a few kids being asked questions about guns on college campuses who know nothing about guns but wanting them gone forever and then the best part is watching the Senators and popular activists make fools of themselves with a complete lack of knowledge about what they want to ban.


But then, I probably missed the main point while being so entertained.

[Jack]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

Clear as mud.

Clear communication is probably the most important skill in my job. I know that if I were trying to communicate what you and Pappy seem to think the drafters of this amendment were trying to communicate, then I'd have a subheading "Well regulated militia" describing what that meant, and another subheading "right to bear arms" describing exactly what that meant and who it was relevant to. Because I know from experience that if you want to communicate 2 separate concepts, including them in a single sentence with just a comma separating them is gonna make a lot of people think that those concepts are somehow interdependent. Whether that was the intent or not.

But sometimes I need to leave things open to interpretation, and in those cases I may deliberately structure my use of language in such a way that it is open to interpretation. So I know what deliberately ambiguous language looks like.

It's all good, I live in a country that has reasonably strict gun laws. I grew up in a house full of guns and I have owned a number of guns myself when I was younger, but then we had one really bad massacre and the people decided that enough was enough. We didn't have anywhere near the gun culture that the US has, obviously, and those who liked guns were seriously outnumbered by those who didn't like massacres.

You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.

[Jack]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

[Calandale]

You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.

There are two amendments which are worded in this particular style. The 2nd and the 4th. In both cases,
historically, they had served to set the boundaries of the restriction. If there were no boundaries, in the
case of the 2nd, you wouldn't have any gun control at all. For the 4th, what comprised 'unreasonable' would be left in doubt.

Up until the recent radical judicial activism on the right, expressed in Heller, this was understood - that the
founders were not iconoclasts, trying to completely overthrow the existing terms that a society would operate
under. Literalists are a different matter though.

[Jack]

MOSW, that's a funny picture, but yes, that's probably exactly what they meant. At the time of the writing of the constitution there was no truly organized militia, no national guard. The US militia at the time was what's now considered an unorganized militia, but even still today the US reserve militia consists of every able bodied male 17-45 who is not already a member of the national guard or naval militia. The man in the photo appears to meet those requirements.

[Jack]

You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.

There are two amendments which are worded in this particular style. The 2nd and the 4th. In both cases,
historically, they had served to set the boundaries of the restriction. If there were no boundaries, in the
case of the 2nd, you wouldn't have any gun control at all. For the 4th, what comprised 'unreasonable' would be left in doubt.

Up until the recent radical judicial activism on the right, expressed in Heller, this was understood - that the
founders were not iconoclasts, trying to completely overthrow the existing terms that a society would operate
under. Literalists are a different matter though.

Thinking the only real boundaries of restricting constitutional right are to hinder states from eliminating rights completely. It's hard to think of much that hasn't been determined by the courts to be conditional. Agree with the point of literalists. Probably correct in saying the writing is vague intentionally. Vague means adaptable, and that adaptability is why it still works.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

Is the first part of the sentence a qualifier for the second part of the sentence, or is it a separate statement? If you want to make two separate statements there are ways of doing that, and people with a reasonable grasp of clear communication in the English language know that if you want to clearly communicate a couple of independent concepts, you don't just whack 'em in the same sentence with a comma in the middle (lots of sentences have commas, it's not really a "forget about the first part of the sentence, get ready for clause 2" kinda thing).

"The people". Well, since the same sentence started out talking about well-regulated militias, wouldn't that imply that "the people" means "the people who are part of a well-regulated militia". It doesn't say "the people of the United States of America" as other parts of the constitution do when they mean "the people of...". I don't actually believe that << BUT if I really wanted to believe that is what it meant, I'm sure I could convince myself of that. That is the whole point, the way that the language is structured leads the door open for that sentece to be interpreted in many different ways.

"Bear arms". You can be armed with a sword, you can be armed with a potato gun, you can be armed with a stick. It seems to have evolved to mean "any type of gun, but not a cannon or a tank".

[DirtDawg]

If the intention was to make a clear statement regarding who had a right to bear arms, then they failed miserably.

That's the part that's clear. Scrap is correct, 'the right of the people' means we the people of the united states.

But it's not.

Of course it is. It's not necessary for the constitution to pound out all the details; that can be determined by the courts and the states. It makes it adaptable. There's all sorts of limitations that can be in place which don't deny the people the right to own arms, age requirement, licensing, registration, safety courses, written and hands on testing. The government can also easily say, no one is stopping me from owning a gun; I just can't own an automatic, a silencer, or high capacity magazines. There's also circumstances which make people forfeit other constitutional rights, so not only to arms but also liberty and life. It's not necessary for the constitution to detail all the ways the people can loose their right to freedom or their right to live either.

I think we just became new "friends,"  since you have explained it fairly well.

I do have to re-point you one issue. I have had a Class III License for over thirty five years. I have to pay a tax every year and submit a current photo and have my finger prints updated. Trust me, the BATFE knows who owns every legal automatic or silenced weapon in the country. As long as I am legal then my guns are legal, but I have a license to renew every year. Not a small thing.

This used to be a Department Of Treasury concern, when I first got my license, but I have come to understand that this is now a part of the Department Of Justice, like even closer to being shut down.

If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.

[Jack]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.