My Issue With The 2008 Second Amendment Decision

[Curious George]

(1) Numerous courts so far have disagreed with you that the Second Amendment disallows trigger-lock and/or safe-storage requirements of firearms not being carried on the person.

Nous I really did expect that I wouldn't have to explain this to you. First, I never claimed that the Second Amendment disallowed anything. Second, that some protection is afforded does not mean that laws cannot be passed.

(2) The fact that I may not "have reason to assume" that someone didn't contemplate some proposition 230 years ago doesn't imply that people generally or anyone did contemplate some other proposition 230 years ago.

No, excepting that the Second Amendment clearly did contemplate defense.

Your reasoning about what the Second Amendment supposedly entails is just fallacious and/or baseless on all fronts.

No, you are just choosing to ignore the reasoning. But on the off chance you are correct, what particular fallacy do you see?

 

[wandering peacefully]

The amendment contemplated defense through use of a well regulated militia whose members had a right to bear arms. Why do gun advocates who use the constitution to defend their interpretation never use the phrase well regulated militia when quoting the supposed right?

 

[Curious George]

The amendment contemplated defense through use of a well regulated militia whose members had a right to bear arms. Why do gun advocates who use the constitution to defend their interpretation never use the phrase well regulated militia when quoting the supposed right?

Pretty sure that it does not say "the right of the well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms." I happily use the militia clause when citing the amendment. However that is not the clause that is being discussed.

Similarly, I do no always use the free exercise clause when discussing the establishment clause. Why is that confusing?

 

[wandering peacefully]

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.

I just don't' usually hear this phrase when the masses of people are discussing their rights. It often goes something like this;

"The second amendment says no one has a right to take away my guns and you can't put restrictions on my using them."

I was just pointing out the usual argument of folks in the streets. It seems they are not real keen on mentioning the well regulated militia part of the phrase. It is one sentence not two.

 

[Curious George]

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.

I just don't' usually hear this phrase when the masses of people are discussing their rights. It often goes something like this;

"The second amendment says no one has a right to take away my guns and you can't put restrictions on my using them."

I was just pointing out the usual argument of folks in the streets. It seems they are not real keen on mentioning the well regulated militia part of the phrase. It is one sentence not two.

It is one sentence but they are separate clauses in the same sentence. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause are also part of the same sentence. I understand how the issue is commonly discussed. I think most people rely on the "constitution" to support the fact that they do not want someone telling them what they can or cannot have. But some not understanding the reasoning behind it does not make the reasoning behind it any less important.

 

[Skwim]

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.

I just don't' usually hear this phrase when the masses of people are discussing their rights. It often goes something like this;

"The second amendment says no one has a right to take away my guns and you can't put restrictions on my using them."

I was just pointing out the usual argument of folks in the streets. It seems they are not real keen on mentioning the well regulated militia part of the phrase. It is one sentence not two.

And as I pointed out in my OP, neither did the majority of the judges in the 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller decision. The Second Amendment may just as well read. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

.

 

[Nous]

Nous I really did expect that I wouldn't have to explain this to you. First, I never claimed that the Second Amendment disallowed anything. Second, that some protection is afforded does not mean that laws cannot be passed.

No, excepting that the Second Amendment clearly did contemplate defense.

No, you are just choosing to ignore the reasoning. But on the off chance you are correct, what particular fallacy do you see?

This is what I predicted in #194:

I predict that you will demonstrate that you cannot make any such deduction [about the "types of defense contemplated" by the crafters of the Second Amendment including personal-use purposes of self-defense], and thereby [will] demonstrate that your ideas about what arms are or were intended to be "protected" by the Second Amendment [are] nothing more than the product of your fantasies and illogic.

Thank you for demonstrating my prophetic powers. It actually wasn't a difficult prediction to correctly make given that your ideas about the Second Amendment intending to secure the right to possess arms for personal use purposes is provably false. The crafters of the Second Amendment were obviously familiar with those state provisions and proposals that explicitly included the personal-use purpose of self-defense, such as the Declarations of Vermont and Pennsylvania, and the crafters of the Second Amendment rejected including such personal-use purposes in the Second Amendment.

 

[Nous]

The amendment contemplated defense through use of a well regulated militia whose members had a right to bear arms.

How much more succinctly can one state the fact than this?

 

[Nous]

I happily use the militia clause when citing the amendment. However that is not the clause that is being discussed.

Who excluded the initial clause of the Second Amendment from what "is being discussed" here?

 

[Curious George]

This is what I predicted in #194:

Thank you for demonstrating my prophetic powers. It actually wasn't a difficult prediction to correctly make given that your ideas about the Second Amendment intending to secure the right to possess arms for personal use purposes is provably false. The crafters of the Second Amendment were obviously familiar with those state provisions and proposals that explicitly included the personal-use purpose of self-defense, such as the Declarations of Vermont and Pennsylvania, and the crafters of the Second Amendment rejected including such personal-use purposes in the Second Amendment.

Lol. Still waiting on you to actually spell out the fallacies...

 

[Curious George]

Who excluded the initial clause of the Second Amendment from what "is being discussed" here?

Excluded? No one is excluding the militia clause from being discussed here. It has been shown quite soundly why the right to keep and bear arms as protected in the 2nd Amendment is not, and was never intended to be, a right belonging solely to the militia. The militia clause was included in this discussion.

 

[Nous]

Lol. Still waiting on you to actually spell out the fallacies...

You haven't attempted an argument yet. You claimed to have deduced what types of defense were contemplated by the crafters (and ratifiers?) of the Second Amendment, but you obviously haven't been able to state any such deduction.

It's fallacious to claim that the Second Amendment was intended to include a right to possess and use armaments for personal-use purposes, because such claim has no basis in reality. The crafters of the Second Amendment were well aware of state provisions and proposals that included a right specifically for self-defense, but rejected including such a personal-use purpose in the Second Amendment.

 

[Nous]

No one is excluding the militia clause from being discussed here.

You said "the militia clause . . . is not the clause that is being discussed." So I asked who excluded the initial clause from what is being discussed here.

It has been shown quite soundly why the right to keep and bear arms as protected in the 2nd Amendment is not, and was never intended to be, a right belonging solely to the militia.

I didn't see where anyone showed any such thing. Quote it.

 

[Curious George]

You said "the militia clause . . . is not the clause that is being discussed." So I asked who excluded the initial clause from what is being discussed here.

I didn't see where anyone showed any such thing. Quote it.

And it indeed was not the clause that was being discussed. But that does not entail that it was excluded from the conversation.

 

[Curious George]

You haven't attempted an argument yet. You claimed to have deduced what types of defense were contemplated by the crafters (and ratifiers?) of the Second Amendment, but you obviously haven't been able to state any such deduction.

It's fallacious to claim that the Second Amendment was intended to include a right to possess and use armaments for personal-use purposes, because such claim has no basis in reality. The crafters of the Second Amendment were well aware of state provisions and proposals that included a right specifically for self-defense, but rejected including such a personal-use purpose in the Second Amendment.

No. I made an argument, you acknowledged that already by stating that my argument was fallacious. I responded by asking you to point to the fallacies. You are now coming back with the assertion that no argument was made.

 

[Nous]

And it indeed was not the clause that was being discussed.

Who decided not to discuss it?

 

[Nous]

No. I made an argument

I didn't see it. State the deduction you claimed to have made like this:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . "types of defense contemplated" . . .]

 

[Curious George]

Who decided not to discuss it?

At which time?

 

[Nous]

At which time?

At any point.

 

[Nous]

No. I made an argument

I didn't see it. State the deduction you claimed to have made like this:

P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore [. . . "types of defense contemplated" . . .]

So are unable to state the deduction that you claimed to have made because you cannot make deductions generally, or because the deduction you claimed to have made just has no basis in reality, is not premised on any fact?