Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Copernicus]

And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.

I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.

Jahryn, it is a mistake to think that the meaning of expressions is contained inside of the symbols that we call "words". Context is essential to interpreting any text. The text refers to "the right of the people", but is it referring to individuals or the collective? "We, the people" refers to a collective. The 2nd Amendment was usually interpreted as a collective right associated with arming and training a militia. The Bill of Rights was not meant to protect the states and people from the federal government. That is libertarian and NRA bullshit. The Constitution was meant to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". The Bill of Rights was a set of amendments added to the Constitution that ended with two amendments to underscore the existence of unenumerated rights held by the states, communities, and individuals. There is nothing in that amendment that directly ties it to personal or individual ownership, although that certainly was a right or privilege of individuals in those times. "The people" who joined militias could also "keep" their muskets and other weapons in arsenals and armories that could be accessed in times of emergency.

The Supreme Court has the right to interpret what the wording in the Constitution means, because we collectively give them that authority and responsibility through the Constitution. Unfortunately, the individual justices have varying opinions about what the historical context was that gave meaning to its wording. So they can choose to interpret "the people" as having an individual right to own a gun, and that is just what the majority of the Court is doing right now. A future Court could just as easily reinterpret "the people" back into being a collective. It's all a matter of how they choose to construe the context. And bear in mind that the framers and ratifiers also had varying opinions about what the words meant. The question really comes down to reconciling the historical and modern contexts in a way that makes sense in modern times, and the current interpretation so-called "fundamentalist" interpretation does not make any sense at all. So I think we need to reflect a little more on the difference between the needs of "the people" in the 18th century and the needs of "the people" in the 21st century. They aren't the same.

 

[Copernicus]

...I disagree.

I understand ‘well regulated’ in the time and context of the writing of the second amendment to mean “under the strict control of the authorities”.

I think I've already addressed this point quite sufficiently. Machinery can be regulated, but not in the sense of governed by laws or controlled by authority. In fact, it was a common metaphor historically to treat societies and social activities as regulated like clockwork in a mechanism. It made no sense to think of individual gun ownership as somehow making militias "under the strict control of the authorities". How was "regulated" to be understood in the context of the way muskets were used during military battles in those days? That's what you need to consider, if you want to understand the somewhat arcane wording of the 2nd amendment. The modern usage of "well-regulated" tends to be as you say. The historical usage could carry that meaning, but it was also commonly used to describe the operation of machinery or military drills. What does a voltage regulator do? Does it regulate voltage because some authority will punish it if it disobeys?

 

[Jarhyn]

And my point is, it seemed that the 2nd was aimed at keeping the federal government from controlling the arming policies of the states so as to prevent federal control of munitions.

It's a right specifically granted to the states which they then abused by not actually regulating "the militia" at all.

And now we have a bunch of militias, really more terrorist cells, which are unregulated and running amok.

Again, I think that you make the mistake of thinking that "well-regulated" meant "well-governed" or "well-controlled". But why would personal ownership of a weapon be relevant to that sense of the expression? It made more sense if the authors were thinking of soldiers that could reload quickly and fire in a coordinated pattern. That is, the sense of "well-regulated" they intended was more probably "well-trained" in using single-shot muskets that took time to reload.

I thought Jarhyn made a good point, but when you look at the text, it is explicitly talking to individual rights. The Bill of Rights was originally meant to protect the States and People from the Federal Government. But if the 2nd Amendment was enumerating the responsibility of gun ownership to the states, it is oddly worded. Additionally, gun ownership wasn't all too controversial in a country with a frontier and very rural.

Jahryn, it is a mistake to think that the meaning of expressions is contained inside of the symbols that we call "words". Context is essential to interpreting any text. The text refers to "the right of the people", but is it referring to individuals or the collective? "We, the people" refers to a collective. The 2nd Amendment was usually interpreted as a collective right associated with arming and training a militia. The Bill of Rights was not meant to protect the states and people from the federal government. That is libertarian and NRA bullshit. The Constitution was meant to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". The Bill of Rights was a set of amendments added to the Constitution that ended with two amendments to underscore the existence of unenumerated rights held by the states, communities, and individuals. There is nothing in that amendment that directly ties it to personal or individual ownership, although that certainly was a right or privilege of individuals in those times. "The people" who joined militias could also "keep" their muskets and other weapons in arsenals and armories that could be accessed in times of emergency.

The Supreme Court has the right to interpret what the wording in the Constitution means, because we collectively give them that authority and responsibility through the Constitution. Unfortunately, the individual justices have varying opinions about what the historical context was that gave meaning to its wording. So they can choose to interpret "the people" as having an individual right to own a gun, and that is just what the majority of the Court is doing right now. A future Court could just as easily reinterpret "the people" back into being a collective. It's all a matter of how they choose to construe the context. And bear in mind that the framers and ratifiers also had varying opinions about what the words meant. The question really comes down to reconciling the historical and modern contexts in a way that makes sense in modern times, and the current interpretation so-called "fundamentalist" interpretation does not make any sense at all. So I think we need to reflect a little more on the difference between the needs of "the people" in the 18th century and the needs of "the people" in the 21st century. They aren't the same.

And yet a point has been made and made well that it is specifically in the interests of the well regulated militia that right to keep and bear arms is framed, and I would in fact see that as only keeping and bearing arms as befits the interest of the regulated militia may not be infringed; I would infringe away on the right to keep and bear arms not falling within the interests of the well regulated militia..

 

[ZiprHead]

Sheridan's General Dictionary Of The English Language 1780


Walker's Critical Pronouncing Dictionary 1791

 

[bilby]

...I disagree.

I understand ‘well regulated’ in the time and context of the writing of the second amendment to mean “under the strict control of the authorities”.

I think I've already addressed this point quite sufficiently. Machinery can be regulated, but not in the sense of governed by laws or controlled by authority.

No, that’s exactly the sense in which machinery is ‘regulated’.

In fact, it was a common metaphor historically to treat societies and social activities as regulated like clockwork in a mechanism.

“Historically” isn’t a time. That metaphor gained currency only as mechanisms became ubiquitous.

It made no sense to think of individual gun ownership as somehow making militias "under the strict control of the authorities".

No, that wouldn’t make sense. But the second amendment doesn’t address individual gun ownership at all.

How was "regulated" to be understood in the context of the way muskets were used during military battles in those days?

Exactly as I just described. The complexity of C18th musket drill wasn’t a consideration, because it wasn’t unusual or surprising or even particularly complicated, it was just how guns worked. You are indulging in presentism - the people of the time thought their muskets were the pinnacle of technology and that their drill was simple and elegant, because they had no idea that it could ever be made simpler or quicker.

That's what you need to consider, if you want to understand the somewhat arcane wording of the 2nd amendment.

I have probably forgotten more about muskets and musket drill than most modern people will ever know. My disagreement with you isn’t founded in ignorance of how C18th armed forces operated or were equipped.

The modern usage of "well-regulated" tends to be as you say. The historical usage could carry that meaning, but it was also commonly used to describe the operation of machinery or military drills.

Not prior to the widespread use of machinery, it wasn’t.

Not everything that happened in the past, happened at the same time.

What does a voltage regulator do? Does it regulate voltage because some authority will punish it if it disobeys?

Well, yes, if you asked Issac Newton, he would probably say it does. But first you would need to teach him a couple of centuries of electronics, because there was no such thing as a voltage regulator in his time.

The first regulators were applied to steam engines, and they were also synonymously referred to as “governors”. That should provide an insight into the meaning of the first clause of the second amendment. The writers would likely have been happy to say “A well governed militia…”, because in late C18th English, that would have held the same meaning as “A well regulated militia…”.

 

[Gospel]

Look, personally, I'm all for individuals having the right to arm themselves I just think as a nation we need to be smart about it. Smart enough that a fucking idiot with obvious issues can't get their hands on one. The only argument we should be having IMO is not whether individuals have a right to arms but rather how we can arm people in the most responsible way while protecting the method of doing so from abuse.

 

[Copernicus]

Hermit has pointed out to me that I've been misspelling "breech" as "breach". That kind of undermines my credentials as a mansplainer, but I still stick by my overall position on language here.

Bilby, my argument does not depend on the technical workings of muzzle loaders. It depends on how the time and training necessary to reload such weapons dictated battle tactics with those weapons, which were the mainstay of militia units. They were not very accurate, but they became most effective when a formation of rows coordinated activity to keep up a constant barrage of fire--a bit like a slow-moving artillery piece at close range. Breech loaders changed battle tactics, but they didn't start to do much until after the Civil War. Hence, there were changes to the nature and organization of state militias, especially in the early 19th century.

For the most part, Washington found militias to be of little value, because they were poorly trained and lacked discipline. The reasons for the Second were complex, also having to do with the mistrust Antifederalists had of a federal standing army, but the amendment was not written exclusively to serve their interests. It also underscored the perceived need to have better trained militia units.

The use of "regulate" as a mechanical or clockwork metaphor I mentioned was quite common back then, despite Hermit's use of dictionary definitions (see "appeal to definition fallacy"). Another metaphor that was common was to treat social structures as having similar structure to that of a human body--the "body politic". They could have used the expression "well-disciplined" or "well-trained". Those made sense in the context of "keep and bear arms". It simply doesn't make sense to think that keeping and bearing arms had anything to do with the militia being "well-governed". Their purpose was to make the militia competent in the use of the weapons that they needed to use. Saying that the right couldn't be abridged meant that the federal government could not disarm state militias, which was of particular concern to slave-holding states that felt a need to use militias against potential slave uprisings. Abolitionism was rampant in northern states, so it was very difficult to get all of the states to agree to ratify the Constitution. Madison's promise of a "Bill of Rights" to partially address southern concerns was important to get buy-off in the South. Virginia was the key to all of that, since it had the largest population.

 

[Jarhyn]

Saying that the right couldn't be abridged meant that the federal government could not disarm state militias

This is the heart of what I have been arguing.

The entire purpose was to protect the states' militias' armories and armaments from federal seizures.

The federal government DID have an interest in requiring the militias to be well organized.

 

[Copernicus]

This is the heart of what I have been arguing.

The entire purpose was to protect the states' militias' armories and armaments from federal seizures.

The federal government DID have an interest in requiring the militias to be well organized.

Sure it did. The federal government had an interest in a lot of things that were not the subject of that amendment. The militias were always under the firm control of the federal government until states started seceding from the union. The amendment was never conceived of as a means of rebelling against the federal government, and militias were even used to put down rebellions in a few cases. As for organizing militia units, they could easily have been trained to march around in formation with wooden sticks instead of muskets. The type of organization needed was the ability to coordinate a constant barrage of firing, and that needed training with real weapons.

 

[Hermit]

 

[bilby]

Bilby, my argument does not depend on the technical workings of muzzle loaders. It depends on how the time and training necessary to reload such weapons dictated battle tactics with those weapons, which were the mainstay of militia units. They were not very accurate, but they became most effective when a formation of rows coordinated activity to keep up a constant barrage of fire--a bit like a slow-moving artillery piece at close range. Breech loaders changed battle tactics, but they didn't start to do much until after the Civil War. Hence, there were changes to the nature and organization of state militias, especially in the early 19th century.

Seriously, you don’t need to explain this to me.

I have manufactured and used muzzle loading muskets, and have fired them both as an individual marksman and as part of a formation.

Nevertheless, you are conflating two unrelated arguments about the second amendment.

The meaning of “well regulated” has exactly fuck-all to do with the necessity for musketeers to be trained, and everything to do with their being under discipline. That is, in service to their state, rather than acting as libertarian individuals beholden to nobody for nothing.

 

[Copernicus]

The meaning of “well regulated” has exactly fuck-all to do with the necessity for musketeers to be trained, and everything to do with their being under discipline. That is, in service to their state, rather than acting as libertarian individuals beholden to nobody for nothing.

What does it mean to be "under discipline" without training? You aren't really making any sense. Are you denying the tactic to keep up a constant barrage of fire during battle in those times? Are you saying that they did not need to form lines in which one fired while others were reloading? You don't refute anything I said, but you still want to maintain that I was wrong about what "well-regulated" meant--the usage in which "well-regulated" meant roughly "well-trained".

Did you arrive at that information from looking at citations of usage in a source like the OED or examining a corpus-based concordance? There is nothing in that amendment that tells you exactly what "well-regulated" meant from the plain language of the text. You actually need to look at how the expression was used in contexts in the 18th century. I've done that in the past, but I no longer have the tools or the sources to prove it here. This happens to be a subject that I've followed for several decades, so I do feel that I know what I'm talking about on the usage front. As I've said, it would make no sense that keeping and bearing arms would somehow make anyone more likely to be in "service to the state". Especially given that so many people nowadays seem to buy the NRA/libertarian talking point that the amendment was there to support rebellion against a tyrannical state. Without training, troops using muskets did not make an effective fighting force. That's why Washington tended to be so down on the use of militias during the Revolution. So it made sense to preface that amendment with an explanation of why the right to "keep and bear arms" was there--to have a "well-regulated militia".

People have criticized the 2nd amendment as poorly worded, because it doesn't make much sense in the meaning that you've given to "well-regulated". The initial clause seems to just sit there without contributing anything to the meaning of the main clause--that the right not be infringed. It makes sense when you take "well-regulated" to mean "well-trained", "well-coordinated", or "well-disciplined". The weapons were needed for training.

 

[bilby]

What does it mean to be "under discipline" without training?

Doing what you are told to do, by those lawfully in authority over you.

Not running amok or going out of control.

Like a poorly regulated steam engine might, for example.

 

[Gospel]

Criminals don't care about gun laws and they will get guns by illegal means.

Little do people who make this argument seem to know; they are arming criminals by not agreeing to improved regulation of guns. As we've seen, those classified as "law-abiding citizens" at the time of purchase have actively decided to use their status to obtain guns for criminal activity.

 

[Copernicus]

What does it mean to be "under discipline" without training?

Doing what you are told to do, by those lawfully in authority over you.

Not running amok or going out of control.

Like a poorly regulated steam engine might, for example.

Your first statement is totally irrelevant to the purpose of the amendment, but your last statement affirms the point I was trying to make. Guns weren't about obedience to authority. They were about having a well-regulated fighting force, particularly given the nature of war with muskets at that time. What was the point of having a militia at all, if the country had a standing army? Washington felt that the militias were largely ineffective and useless during the revolution. He needed regular troops--his "well regulated steam engine". Those who opposed a standing federal army had lost, because militias were always going to be nothing more than a supplement to regulars during an attack from a real army. The only real victory that so-called "minutemen" gave the Continental Army was in the ambush and total route of Burgoyne's ill-fated military expedition near the beginning of the Revolution. Afterwards, they only played a minor role, and a very poor one when facing British troops. What was their legitimate role then? Why couldn't the federal authorities just do away with them, since it had a standing army?

Their major role was in defending against Indian raids at the local level and, in the South, protection against a slave insurrection. So they were necessary for the security of a free state, and the Second Amendment stated that need explicitly. It also made sense to northerners in that their frontiers, particularly in the west, faced threats from external Indian nations. Later on, wars with those nations during westward expansions, still largely required regular troops. Militias also came in handy at the state level during citizen revolts. The first clause in the Second Amendment was essential, but the NRA has always sought to eliminate it. And private ownership was then assumed needed for militia duty, but arms could be kept in armories, as well. It wasn't necessarily a guarantee of ownership of guns by individuals, but also by communities, for militia duty. A right for local and state governments.

 

[Toni]

Private arms ownership was also considered a given in any rural or frontier town, not necessarily as protection against Indians but as an essential means of obtaining food--and as a defense against some of the more dangerous wildlife.

Edited to add: Private arms ownership is still pretty much a given in rural areas for the same reasons: hunting game provides essential food and there is legitimate need to be able to defend home, family, pets, crops and livestock from wildlife.

 

[Copernicus]

Private arms ownership was also considered a given in any rural or frontier town, not necessarily as protection against Indians but as an essential means of obtaining food--and as a defense against some of the more dangerous wildlife.

And they are still felt necessary by some homeowners in rural areas. However, that right has nothing to do with militias.

 

[ZiprHead]

Private arms ownership was also considered a given in any rural or frontier town, not necessarily as protection against Indians but as an essential means of obtaining food--and as a defense against some of the more dangerous wildlife.

And they are still felt necessary by some homeowners in rural areas. However, that right has nothing to do with militias.

No one needs an AR or an AK to defend themselves from wildlife.

 

[bilby]

Private arms ownership was also considered a given in any rural or frontier town, not necessarily as protection against Indians but as an essential means of obtaining food--and as a defense against some of the more dangerous wildlife.

And they are still felt necessary by some homeowners in rural areas. However, that right has nothing to do with militias.

No one needs an AR or an AK to defend themselves from wildlife.

Projectile weapons cannot be used defensively at all.

Unless you’re expecting to be attacked with missiles, and are installing a CIWS.

Protecting yourself against a person with a gun, by pointing your own gun at them, only works in movies.

For that matter, ‘bad guys’ and ‘good guys’ only exist in movies, too.

Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Private arms ownership was also considered a given in any rural or frontier town, not necessarily as protection against Indians but as an essential means of obtaining food--and as a defense against some of the more dangerous wildlife.

And they are still felt necessary by some homeowners in rural areas. However, that right has nothing to do with militias.

No one needs an AR or an AK to defend themselves from wildlife.

Projectile weapons cannot be used defensively at all.

Unless you’re expecting to be attacked with missiles, and are installing a CIWS.

Protecting yourself against a person with a gun, by pointing your own gun at them, only works in movies.

For that matter, ‘bad guys’ and ‘good guys’ only exist in movies, too.

Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Somebody with a gun--you either do nothing or you shoot, you don't point. Pointing is for when you're dealing with someone who doesn't have a gun in their hand but is approaching with apparently criminal intent.