2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7951
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:18 pm

I can't believe no one realized this earlier. Many have alluded to it, but never this clearly that I know of...

https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/br ... 1902100107
“If the Second Amendment had been understood to have the meaning given to it by Justice Scalia, it would not have been ratified by Virginia and the other slave states.”

... the Virginian founders wanted to be sure guns didn’t get into the hands of enslaved black Virginians or free black Virginians, Mr. Picadio argues. With the state’s all-white militia, this amendment helped do just that.
...
“Even if a right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes preexisted the Bill of Rights, it was not understood by the drafters . . . to be included within the Second Amendment.’’
...
Madison tied the right to the militia because he and other slave owners greatly feared “a ruinous slave rebellion in which their families would be slaughtered and their property destroyed.’’

gozer
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: everywhere
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby gozer » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:03 pm

an original understanding of the intent of bearing arms would also mean the state of the art in anno domini 1791, wouldn't it? like muskets and swords?

there is a reason under the united states system that things are allowed to be revisited -- any court deciding on a hypothetical is de facto legislating, which they really oughtn't to do . . .

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 11179
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: 2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby gargantua » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:05 pm

It's a good point, jonny, but good luck selling it in this day and age. Gun nuts don't really care what the Founders intended, unless it affirms their desire for unfettered access to any gun they want.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7951
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: 2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:14 pm

gargantua wrote:It's a good point, jonny, but good luck selling it in this day and age. Gun nuts don't really care what the Founders intended, unless it affirms their desire for unfettered access to any gun they want.

Well, of course. Brick walls are more flexible. :)

I wish I could get back to a simpler time when I just played guitar, and stuff like that. I feel like I'm addicted to this kind of stuff.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7951
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: 2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby jonnygothispen » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:17 pm

gozer wrote:an original understanding of the intent of bearing arms would also mean the state of the art in anno domini 1791, wouldn't it? like muskets and swords?

there is a reason under the united states system that things are allowed to be revisited -- any court deciding on a hypothetical is de facto legislating, which they really oughtn't to do . . .

Well, yeah. And that Bear Arms originally meant...

The overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.

gozer
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 1:35 pm
Location: everywhere
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby gozer » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:32 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:
gozer wrote:an original understanding of the intent of bearing arms would also mean the state of the art in anno domini 1791, wouldn't it? like muskets and swords?

there is a reason under the united states system that things are allowed to be revisited -- any court deciding on a hypothetical is de facto legislating, which they really oughtn't to do . . .

Well, yeah. And that Bear Arms originally meant...

The overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.


then there is the well-regulated part . . .
a high-throughput firearm is a robot with the trigger as a power switch -- i suppose that is a can of worms for later too . . .

Igor
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2197
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 10:48 pm
Contact:

Re: 2nd Amendment phrasing finally resolved...

Postby Igor » Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:53 pm

gargantua wrote:Gun nuts don't really care what the Founders intended


That is hardly confined to just Gun Nuts.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests