The Liberal Gun Club Forum

From the article:

It’s the Second Amendment to the American Constitution, a part of the U.S. Bill of Rights: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

In most of the normal world, that statement is interpreted to mean that the government, representing the people, is entitled to establish an armed force. But for many Americans, led by the NRA, it means something far more. It means that every individual has the right to be personally armed.

What a brilliant interpretation! The second amendment prevents the government from preventing itself from establishing an armed force! Never mind that section 8 of the Constitution gives to congress the power to establish an armed force. Does the Globe and Mail think that section 8 is about establishing disarmed Armies??? and a disarmed navy? Only the second amendment ensures that these corps will be armed?

I can understand people who say the 2A is about militias, seeing as militias are different than the armies and navy authorized by section 8. I do not agree with them but I understand their reasoning. The Globe and Mail's analysis though is pure batshit craziness.

lemur wrote:I can understand people who say the 2A is about militias, seeing as militias are different than the armies and navy authorized by section 8. I do not agree with them but I understand their reasoning. The Globe and Mail's analysis though is pure batshit craziness.

The thing about militias is that they are not permanent entities and militiamen provide their own arms.

So it doesn't matter if it is talking about militias because militias still mean everyone NOT in the army and it still means they have to be permitted to keep and bear arms.

Wurble wrote:

lemur wrote:I can understand people who say the 2A is about militias, seeing as militias are different than the armies and navy authorized by section 8. I do not agree with them but I understand their reasoning. The Globe and Mail's analysis though is pure batshit craziness.

The thing about militias is that they are not permanent entities and militiamen provide their own arms.

So it doesn't matter if it is talking about militias because militias still mean everyone NOT in the army and it still means they have to be permitted to keep and bear arms.

You and I are in agreement about the fact that it does not matter that it says "militia". I've emphasized the operative phrase in the bit you quoted:

lemur wrote:I can understand people who say the 2A is about militias, seeing as militias are different than the armies and navy authorized by section 8. I do not agree with them but I understand their reasoning. The Globe and Mail's analysis though is pure batshit craziness.

I understand the second amendment the way Prof Volokh does: the prefatory clause, or justification clause or whatever (the bit about militias) just gives one example of why the RKBA is desirable. It does not impose limits on that right.

When I say that I understand those who argue that the prefatory clause somehow limits the RKBA, I mean that I understand them in the same way I can understand the train of thought behind a bad answer to a mathematical problem. If I ask what are the zeros of y=x*x - 1 and someone answers "x=1". I understand that they forgot (perhaps momentarily) that not only 1*1 = 1 but also -1*-1 = 1. So it has two zeros: x=1 and x=-1. My understanding their reasoning does not mean I consider their answer correct. On the other hand, if they answer that the function has no zeros or that the zeros are x=pi and x=-pi, then I can't see why they would think that.

You misunderstand me.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my statement with:

"I agree..."

I did not think you supported the "militias only" claim.

Wurble wrote:You misunderstand me.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my statement with:

"I agree..."

I wasn't sure. Maybe I should have prefaced, "I'm not sure but..."