Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
According to the amendment, the militia is necessary for the security of the state.
A "Free State" represents an idea. You may of over simplified there. To defend a "Free State" is to defend the principles not the land.

The Constitution had already been written and now the Congress was debating the amendments. Any Brits in the Congress?
Either you misread me or I am you, but that seems to be a non sequitur.

To *have guns* is not the same thing as *bear arms*. One is owning them, the other is to carry them around. The other is for the militia, insofar as the amendment is concerned, and the militia is to be regulated, it requires specific types of guns, not any random types, so guns have to be regulated too, when you bear them.
Again, interpretation agrees... In some States... That open carry is unnecessary. But the wording does not limit. That is what can be debated in law but even that is mostly left up to individual States. Some are tougher than others but Constitutionally the Feds are supposed to leave open ended interpretation to the States - subject to the Supreme Court's rulings. If you're struggling with why things are - keep reading the document. Each amendment has it's own interpretation and some you'll be willing to accept as obvious although not explicitly stated. They each play off each other to give you a feel of the document's meaning. A meaning that can and has changed. That's why it's not so much a list of definitives and their defining qualities as principles to be held up first.

Just amusing to observe how an idea can get out of hand and be touted to be constitutional with original intent
Agreed, so long as you don't let that amusement lead to considering the actual meaning a joke.
2
The meaning comes from the need of the people to raise a militia...
No. According to the amendment, the militia is necessary for the security of the state.

...and the fact that the weapons were restricted by the British.
The Constitution had already been written and now the Congress was debating the amendments. Any Brits in the Congress?

Given you don't hand someone a gun and suddenly they are a soldier, owning a gun for other means is the best way to provide innate proficiency.
Or perhaps:
Quote from: Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense By Saul Cornell
Compared to England, America was a well-armed society, but the guns owned by citizens tended to be those of greatest utility in a rural agricultural society. Pistols were generally a luxury good and only a small percentage of the population opted to acquire them. Heavy, large-bore military style mus­kets with bayonets, the type of weapons most essential to a well-regulated mili­tia, were not what most citizens wanted for private use. One of the main goals of government firearms policy in the Founding era was to encourage owner­ship of these military-style weapons.

f anything it confirms the right to have guns and form civil defense forces.
To *have guns* is not the same thing as *bear arms*. One is owning them, the other is to carry them around. The other is for the militia, insofar as the amendment is concerned, and the militia is to be regulated, it requires specific types of guns, not any random types, so guns have to be regulated too, when you bear them.

That's the idea you're fighting with the second amendment crowd, not he wording of the document...
I know. And I don't see it as my duty to convince them of any other sort of idea. Just amusing to observe how an idea can get out of hand and be touted to be constitutional with original intent, when it actually has ceased to have any connection with the text and with the historically reconstructible intent.
3
Oh, this topic got away from me. I meant to participate more. If time allows I'll revisit, but for now...

We now know that some claim that "bear arms" can be idiomatic, implying an organised militia, but we don't have to take their word for it because it says "well regulated militia" right there in the same sentence.

The need for a militia isn't a deciding factor in the right to do so. E.g. "Shall not be infringed" follows the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". The meaning comes from the need of the people to raise a militia and the fact that the weapons were restricted by the British. Not exhausting a list of do's and don'ts is also part of the document. It's not meant to limit by it's wording. That's done in interpretation. Should a "free State" need defending the people have the right to be prepared. Given you don't hand someone a gun and suddenly they are a soldier, owning a gun for other means is the best way to provide innate proficiency. 

Regulation is Constitutional based on interpretation. If we were to simplify it as requested then at no time for any reason can you restrict access to guns. It simply says, in modern speak; Given the potential need of the people to form a defense force, they need guns, and no one should take them so as to prevent it. That idea is passed down and translates to: If they try to take your ability to defend yourself you are not in a "Free State". If anything it confirms the right to have guns and form civil defense forces.

That's the idea you're fighting with the second amendment crowd, not the wording of the document as much as the meaning they were taught. Not wrongly taught either. How that works in a modern context may feel different - Like who needs a militia to be "well regulated"? Insurgents seem to do pretty well without such an extensive hierarchy - But the idea is sound.

*edit* damn I swear my kybd skips letters I type. It's not me! :whistle:
4
This pretty much exhausts the need for analysis.
Sounds about right. :cheers:
6
DnD Central / Bear arms
Last post by Barulheira -
Leave the bears alone...
7
Sure, sure, but it's a hopeless case of overanalysis, particularly because you have apparently forgotten the topic by now. Are you saying that there's Dutch influence in the 2nd Amendment or in the way Americans conceive of gun rights? Are you desperately hoping some such influence would be found?
No, like I said the meaning of 18th century English coupled with (American-)English common law is required to properly interpret that one.
And that happens to be nigh trivial, because we are talking about a single sentence with common words. We now know that some claim that "bear arms" can be idiomatic, implying an organised militia, but we don't have to take their word for it because it says "well regulated militia" right there in the same sentence. And the text of the amendment is historically a contraction from a longer text that talked all about the militia, what it was and how people were supposed to relate to it. This pretty much exhausts the need for analysis.
8
No difference when testing it under XP, both files, they end with 100% and bytes number matches.
9
Sure, sure, but it's a hopeless case of overanalysis, particularly because you have apparently forgotten the topic by now. Are you saying that there's Dutch influence in the 2nd Amendment or in the way Americans conceive of gun rights? Are you desperately hoping some such influence would be found?
No, like I said the meaning of 18th century English coupled with (American-)English common law is required to properly interpret that one.
10
@Mike, still no luck, but it might be somehow XP specific too, I'll try to test it there too (testing that build under Windows 10 doesn't show any issues with values).