The Great American Gun Fetish

[Blurry_Dreams]

The militia argument was settled by the courts; kind of a nonstarter.

IIRC
the court decision you're referring to basically said the content of my last post

 

[Einherjar86]

I supplied a link

Yes, from the “constitution society.” Have you looked for anything else?

 

[The Ozzman]

Yes, from the “constitution society.”

Which quoted examples of phrase usage from the Oxford English Dictionary. Am I going to change your mind by supplying you with other links or are you just going to continue being pedantic about this?

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

t

Which quoted from the Oxford English Dictionary. Am I going to change your mind by supplying you with other links or are you just going to continue being pedantic about this?

hahaha

 

[Einherjar86]

Which quoted from the Oxford English Dictionary. Am I going to change your mind by supplying you with other links or are you just going to continue being pedantic about this?

I’m going to keep challenging you on it, as there are political scientists and scholars who challenge this definition.

If regulated means “in well-working order,” then I’d ask how we determine something is “well-working.” Every able bodied male might be a virtual militia member; but outside of any institutional organization, determining regulation is next to impossible. Just because the OED defines something a certain way doesn’t mean that’s how the authors were using it. That’s not how language works.

/pedantic reply

 

[The Ozzman]

I’m going to keep challenging you on it, as there are political scientists and scholars who challenge this definition.

If regulated means “in well-working order,” then I’d ask how we determine something is “well-working.” Every able bodied male might be a virtual militia member; but outside of any institutional organization, determining regulation is next to impossible. Just because the OED defines something a certain way doesn’t mean that’s how the authors were using it. That’s not how language works.

/pedantic reply

So, you're just going to be pedantic. Got it.

Did you not read the link? It quoted phrase usage from the time frame which is consistent with the use of 'well working' as the definition. I feel like you're baiting me rn.

If you think I'm wrong, provide evidence instead of supposition. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary at this time.

Scholars and political scientists can theorize all they want about what the founding fathers meant, but SCOTUS doesn't give a fuck what they said. They have ruled in Heller, McDonald and Caetano that Americans have a right to bear arms, period. Like Dak said, the 'well regulated militia' argument is a non starter based on SCOTUS decisions about this.

EDIT: I just noticed that you went from 'well regulated' to 'regulation' to make your argument. Was that intentional?

 

[Einherjar86]

I’m on my phone leaving town for a weekend getaway. I’m not ruining it anymore than I already have.

The ironic thing is, you could go and read other studies and interpretations on this issue—if you actually cared to. There’s so much scholarship out there, but now everyone’s an internet wizard. But all this is ultimately beside the point: whatever the constitution means, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re fully justified in throwing out the whole damn thing and starting from scratch. Even if “well regulated” includes every male citizen, there’s no reason that holds water today beyond the fetish Americans have over the constitution. Laws change as people’s minds change.

Furthermore, you’re actually being more pedantic than I am by insisting on exact definitions. I’m signing off for the weekend, enjoy rolling with the other hogs through all this bullshit.

 

[The Ozzman]

Riddle me this, Ein: Why would an amendment have the following in the same sentence:

1) Regulation of the right to bear arms (via a National Guard which didn't exist at the time)
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Surely the word 'people' extends beyond just the National Guard that didn't exist at the time of the Constitution or does that particular definition stay the same solely to fit your narrative?

Laws change as people’s minds change.

Nah, they change as politicians' minds change

 

[Dak]

we’re fully justified in throwing out the whole damn thing and starting from scratch. Even if “well regulated” includes every male citizen, there’s no reason that holds water today beyond the fetish Americans have over the constitution. Laws change as people’s minds change.

We inch closer to balkanization. Not sure how that's going to turn out though because some of the balkanization is at the county or even neighborhood level.

 

[EternalMetal]

Obviously not lol

I said 'probably' and I think I changed my stance later on in that thread. Thanks for working controversy into my lighthearted post you dumb motherfucker. I bet you suck at shooting.

 

[The Ozzman]

I bet you suck at shooting.

>implying I wasn't giving you shit

Yeah, probably. I don't go to the range enough. I would go once a week if I could afford it but shooting at paper targets is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to shooting and personal protection. Shooting 100 rounds at a silhouette target once a month =/= training.

I'm more than happy to put a bet down if you're ever in town though. Loser buys dinner.

 

[EternalMetal]

>implying I wasn't giving you shit

I honestly don't understand, do you mean "was"?

Yeah, probably. I don't go to the range enough. I would go once a week if I could afford it but shooting at paper targets is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to shooting and personal protection. Shooting 100 rounds at a silhouette target once a month =/= training.

I'm more than happy to put a bet down if you're ever in town though. Loser buys dinner.

I suck with handguns, but im good with shotguns and hunting rifles. Competing with clays is funner than seeing who can get the tightest grouping on a target, but id do it if you insisted. You've probably mentioned it 100 times, but what guns do you usually shoot?

 

[The Ozzman]

I honestly don't understand, do you mean "was"?

No. It's another way of saying "You're implying I was serious".

You've probably mentioned it 100 times, but what guns do you usually shoot?

Handguns because they are my EDC but I'm getting into rifles more. I have a Mosin that just collects dust and I have a handful of shotguns and AR-15s are in there too. I would like to take a tactical shotgun class but they aren't offered much around here. I don't hunt so all of my shotguns are more for home defense or tactical purposes.

I have a few revolvers too because I think they look cool

I've never shot clays but I'm a member at a club that has a great facility for that so I may look into it.

 

[EternalMetal]

I've never shot clays

Shit dude, you gotta do it. It's definitely a blast and beats target practice by far imo. The setups they have at gun clubs are the best, but even a back yard thrower is fun.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

But all this is ultimately beside the point: whatever the constitution means, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re fully justified in throwing out the whole damn thing and starting from scratch. Even if “well regulated” includes every male citizen, there’s no reason that holds water today beyond the fetish Americans have over the constitution. Laws change as people’s minds change.

If you can secure 2/3rds of the Senate and House, AND 3/4ths of the state legislative bodies, sure. Otherwise, no, it's about as justified as the president arbitrarily directing the military to enforce "Everyone Gives the Pres a Rimjob Day".

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

let be real here, Ozz just wants free dinner.

 

[The Ozzman]

let be real here, Ozz just wants free dinner.

You wouldn't?

 

[Dak]

If you can secure 2/3rds of the Senate and House, AND 3/4ths of the state legislative bodies, sure. Otherwise, no, it's about as justified as the president arbitrarily directing the military to enforce "Everyone Gives the Pres a Rimjob Day".

Libs are just fascists who don't know it yet. They'd be happy with a military coup if the military wasn't full of people who like guns.

 

[EternalMetal]

let be real here, Ozz just wants free dinner.

If it's anything other than handguns it would probably be me with the free dinner. I usually miss 3 in 5 shots at a target at 5 yds with a handgun, lol

 

[Einherjar86]

The militia argument was settled by the courts; kind of a nonstarter.

It was settled legally, but it was hardly settled definitionally or interpretively. The court decision was split 5-4.

I wasn't mad; I was just on a weekend getaway with the wife and friends, and didn't want to spend it talking to you.

Riddle me this, Ein: Why would an amendment have the following in the same sentence:

1) Regulation of the right to bear arms (via a National Guard which didn't exist at the time)
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Surely the word 'people' extends beyond just the National Guard that didn't exist at the time of the Constitution or does that particular definition stay the same solely to fit your narrative?

But in what sense does it extend to the people? Militias are comprised of individuals; so in that sense, it must extend beyond the abstract notion of a militia and to concrete persons. This doesn't necessarily translate, however, into individual rights often associated with gun ownership and distilled from the language of the second amendment.

You might look at Saul Cornell's book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, published by Oxford UP. Cornell argues that gun ownership is neither a collective right (i.e. of states to maintain armed militias) nor an individual one (i.e. of individual citizens to own guns for any reason they deem appropriate), but a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves in order to participate in a militia. The second amendment contains no provision of ownership for personal reasons.

I'd also point to this paragraph from the blog for UIllinois, which discusses the weird grammar of the second amendment (a major source of uncertainty when diagnosing its meaning, much less what the authors intended):

https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/3721

In the case of the Second Amendment, the absolute also shows a clear cause-and-effect relationship: because a well-regulated militia is necessary, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Add to this the fact that the expression “to bear arms” overwhelmingly occurs in military contexts, not civilian ones, both in the 18th century and today: as the historian Garry Wills (1995) has put it, one does not bear arms against a rabbit. It would thus be hard to discount the militia when interpreting the Second Amendment.

The comment about the phrase "bear arms" refers to how this terminology was commonly used in the eighteenth century. The problem with simply looking up words in dictionaries is that while that might tell you what "bear" and "arms" could mean, it won't tell you what they mean when combined. See here:

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment/

In Heller, three Linguistics Professors submitted an amicus brief, which attempted to answer this charge. They surveyed “115 texts,” including “books, pamphlets, broadsides and newspapers from the period between” 1776 and 1791 that used the phrase “bear arms.” Of those sources, 110 usages were “in clearly military context.” Of the five sources they located that used the phrase “bear arms” in a non-military context, only one was not “qualified by further language indicating a different meaning.” However, the Professors recognized the limits of their own research: “We otherwise have been unable to find” any usages of “bear arms” that did not have a military-related meaning. In response to this evidence, Justice Scalia wrote “the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts.”

also:

This sort of research may have been the state of the art in 2008. However, modern technology allows us to dive deeper. Professor Dennis Baron, who joined the Linguistics brief in Heller a decade ago, searched the COFEA for the term “bear arms.” He also performed the same search on the Corpus of Early Modern English, which includes nearly 1.3 billion words from over 40,000 texts from 1475-1800. He found “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.” From this evidence, Professor Baron concluded that the “[t]hese databases confirm that the natural meaning of ‘bear arms’ in the framers’ day was military.” Likewise, Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant used Google Books to search for the phase “bear arms” in sources published between 1760-1795. They found that in 67.4% of the sample size, “bear arms” was used in its collective sense, whereas in 18.2% of the sample, the phase was used in an individual sense.

These arguments/essays are much longer and contain more interesting nuances than these excerpts reflect, but that's why I linked them.

tl;dr, most interpretations acknowledge the right of individuals to own firearms, but they state that ownership cannot be extricated from military duties. There's nothing in the second amendment that legalizes or even permits the use of firearms for unspecified individual purposes.

For what it's worth, I'm not a constitutionalist, and I think individuals should be able to use guns for personal reasons (i.e. hunting, target shooting, home protection, etc.). My concerns with gun control are with what kind of firearms people are allowed to "keep," and I currently believe that many semi-automatic weapons with high-round capacities are unnecessary for personal use.

Libs are just fascists who don't know it yet. They'd be happy with a military coup if the military wasn't full of people who like guns.

How was what I said fascist in any way?