If you could rewrite the 2nd Amendment

[ignerntbend]

So much for strict constructionism

 

[WTJ]

No idea. All I can see is that I'm all hung up on what the amendment says, as Nate pointed out. Now I'm being instructed in what it means. That's ok. Constitution living document type thing? Is that the hook I bit?

My bad. My 'intent' was that you were the fisherman. HAHAHAHAHA. It appears you are hung up on being "well-regulated".

I'm not telling you what I think it means, I am simply going to the source of the document. My take: "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" means just that. This phrase should have been used repeatedly, and maybe we would not have a indecipherable CFR today.

 

[WTJ]

yeah, my bad. I figured he was trolling, but I still had a small filament of hope for this forum, naive as it may be. Oh well, learned my lesson

I hear ya. I do find myself repeating information here in a seemingly futile attempt to communicate. Oh well....

 

[AKguy1985]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This right here.

 

[Werewolf]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This right here.

Except that single bolded word is the source of ALL the problem. To anti-gunners 3 day waiting periods, NICS checks, onerous taxes, bans on scary looking arms and all the other BS that is extant are not infringements.

Rewrite the 2nd and tell the government exactly what it cannot do, exactly. Tell 'em that anything goes except banning rubber band guns or tell 'em they can't do squat but tell 'em in the amendment EXACTLY what it cannot do and EXACTLY what it can do and don't leave any room for doubt because if there is room then it's a 100% foregone conclusion that some weasel politician will take advantage of the doubt be it for us or agin us.

Volumes have been written about what the 2nd means. What it allows and doesn't allow. If the 2nd had been written more precisely one opines that there wouldn't have been volumes written on the subject.

AND that's the point. The 2nd in its current iteration is open to interpretation because it is not exact enough and the founders did not take into account that language changes (ex. regulated in the 18th century doesn't mean the same thing it means today).

 

[ignerntbend]

Except that single bolded word is the source of ALL the problem. To anti-gunners 3 day waiting periods, NICS checks, onerous taxes, bans on scary looking arms and all the other BS that is extant are not infringements.

Rewrite the 2nd and tell the government exactly what it cannot do, exactly. Tell 'em that anything goes except banning rubber band guns or tell 'em they can't do squat but tell 'em in the amendment EXACTLY what it cannot do and EXACTLY what it can do and don't leave any room for doubt because if there is room then it's a 100% foregone conclusion that some weasel politician will take advantage of the doubt be it for us or agin us.

Volumes have been written about what the 2nd means. What it allows and doesn't allow. If the 2nd had been written more precisely one opines that there wouldn't have been volumes written on the subject.

AND that's the point. The 2nd in its current iteration is open to interpretation because it is not exact enough and the founders did not take into account that language changes (ex. regulated in the 18th century doesn't mean the same thing it means today).

This is my problem with all the constitutional experts. It's written in plain English when we want it to be, and it's subject to interpretation when we want it to be.

Position one: It's written in plain language under the reasonable man standard.

Position two: Dude, in 1789 they had like, a whole 'nother language. Words don't really mean what they used to.

Just pick one. Just choose between those positions.

 

[WTJ]

Position One to Arm.