Guns or not Guns

[RZ1029]

The anti-Federalists' minority report reflected the same usage: bear arms, distantly followed by for the purpose of killing game. But let's make three things clear:

• [*]This is a creeping usage which Webster's didn't recognize until after 1934

Good Lord, Webster's didn't recognize it until 1934?! To the Tardis! This must be rectified immediately.

[slimhouse]

There will always exist many varied and convoluted arguments for and against Gun Ownership, from sources

both local to you or latest statistics from far away...

 

As an outsider to all that is and makes America today, your desire to uphold the right to bear arms stems from

the singular passion you have for your Constitution. For though many scoff at religion and faith today, that said

Constitution was founded by men who did hold to a belief structure.

 

If I had any sort of message for America today re. gun ownership it would be to Find The Balance again and

where possible do what is in your heart with a desire for good in mind...

 

And if one morning you ALL wake up and the 'guns are gone' then so be it..!

 

And if they remain, then continue to Live along with them but with Peace in mind..!

...though it may be absent in the minds of others..!?

 

FTR. Own a couple of Air Rifles for a bit of Rabbit shooting.

 

(apologies for the Idealistic stance of this post) it is just my pov.

 

{ I came back and re-edited this post as I felt ir broke the site rules in its original form }

Edited February 3, 2012 by slimhouse

[Marxist ßastard]

Good Lord, Webster's didn't recognize it until 1934?! To the Tardis! This must be rectified immediately.

BRITISH SPY CAUGHT AND HANGED

Apparently the Spy Lived out of a 3'×3'×6' wooden Box

[RZ1029]

Well there goes the thread. Did you bother to read the rules?

[myrmaad]

Pot = kettle.

 

The Websters point is valid, and the time machine joke is off-topic, seemingly because either you don't understand the point of the reference, or you don't like losing the argument.

 

Whichever it is, I don't care but if you're planning to continue the topic the point to address is whether the constitution is or is not a living document, if it is then the accusation of activist judges is nullified on both sides of the political spectrum and if it's not, then MB's point remains correct.

 

I expect you should read some Constitutional lawyers. There are many books and real live experts that address this on both sides of the question which is why it continues to be debated to the Supreme Court. At the end of the day no one here is going to change a thing on the wide scale. Debating here is the equivalent of passing gas in a windstorm.

[grannywils]

Myrmaad, I must say since I usually agree with you anyway it is easy to read your posts. But even when I don't agree with you, it is always fun to read your posts. The last one in particular was quite delightful. Oh, and by the way, I did agree with that one... :biggrin:

[RZ1029]

*graceful bow*

 

Apologies, it seems my point was missed, and was perhaps more poorly expressed than it should have been. While Webster's has been, largely, regarded as an authority on the English language, when it comes to idioms, I am skeptical of the accuracy, when often times the origins are, at best, befuddled, and at worst, completely wrong.

 

I assume that, since it was first recognized in 1934, it was in Webster's New International Dictionary, the 1934 print edition. Before that time, I am sure the phrase was used, with some regularity, and thus would develop multiple interpretations, both connotation and denotation. The issue is, that when referencing material that old, we have to assume that we understand phrases the same way they did, using other reference material from that era that will, ideally, provide more insight to the situation.

 

That being said, their is legal precedence for the use of Webster's Dictionary in the translation of law, involving a US Supreme Court Case, in which the W2 (not a tax form) was used to make the ruling on some sort of phrasing argument. So, from a standpoint of challenging the Amendment's intentions, it could be said that, per legal precedence, it was meant only for those in the Militia. However, the issue becomes what is, in modern terms, defined as militia.

 

The militia of the Revolutionary War was made up of men (and likely the odd woman, though I don't have any documents to cite) who were not regular army, assembled by states for the purpose of fighting for their freedom from the British Empire. In comparison, the National Guard doesn't serve quite the same function, as many of them are, in a sense, still regular soldiers. Not to say they are completely unrelated, but that, due to much social change over the two hundred and fifty (ish, yes I know this is very ballpark) years, there is no longer the need for the average farming townsman to take up military arms and fight for their country, we have a maintained, full-time military for that purpose.

 

Simply put, the issue is pinpoint semantics in a game of horseshoes or hand grenades. I do believe that the constitution was so worded that it would be able to be translated differently over time. For instance, the issue with all 'men' being created equal. At first, that meant 'only white, land-owning males', then it meant 'all land-owning males', then 'all males', then 'all US citizens', and now, to a degree, 'all those in the US, legal or otherwise, citizen or not'.

 

However, I do take affront to being accused of 'not liking losing the argument'. If I am losing, I am losing. Though, given my level of activity in this particular thread, I don't see how I can be losing when I have, at best, been a bystander adding the odd thought or (supposedly) witty repartee. I was far more active in the previous gun thread, which I actually created. It's fairly well-known where I stand on the issue.

 

Additionally, anyone that knows me knows that when I find 'evidence' that doesn't seem to have any purpose, to me, I do meet it with a simple one-liner, as it were. That is usually followed by further expounding on the other's part to help me better understand their meaning. That being said, all in all, warning noted and appreciated, though I think, perhaps, undue.

[myrmaad]

I did say it was the "appearance" I referred to. Nicely back on track. It's my opinion that no tea leaves need to be read if you place the Constitution into its historical context.

[Marxist ßastard]

I assume that, since it was first recognized in 1934, it was in Webster's New International Dictionary, the 1934 print edition.

The 1934 edition defined bear arms as “to serve as a soldier.” I doubt that's the only time the idiom appeared in Webster's; if you want, you could go and look for the other definitions yourself. The point is that 140 years later people still didn't think that bear arms, unmodified, had any meaning outside the military.

 

However, the issue becomes what is, in modern terms, defined as militia.

No, not really. Like any competent legal document, the Constitution defined its most important terms before using them. Militia is defined in Article I, section 8: It's a single military force organized and armed by Congress, which the States train and appoint officers for. That is, the National Guard.

 

By the same token, I'll argue that if bear arms were used in the (then) rare, non-martial context, the Framers would've also taken special care to define it. Instead, they decided that its definition was obvious enough by the martial context in the first clause.

 

RE: “The Constitution is a living document”

 

Sure. But living document doesn't mean magnetic poetry play-set. You can't cut out parts of a sentence which are essential to its meaning – otherwise, you might as well edit until all it says is “All men... get... i...ce... cre... am.” Either you accept the entire Second Amendment as it was intended, or you reject the entire logical sequence which began in Federalist 46. Take it or leave it, but don't apply a per-word veto.

[slimhouse]

It is noteworthy that most Countries (even the so called non agressor 'States') would/do prefer their

ordinary populace to share in a '...you, (when required on) the local ~Militia' - type view.

The ordinary man and woman ready to 'take-up arms' in defense of their Lands ideoligies and beliefs.

 

Being prepared... watchfull... aware...

 

How much we are all influenced by the media and the ebb and flow of international politics, not forgetting

our nurturing from a young age is a big part re.guns(and another debate entirely) in formulating our

(N)ationalistic standpoint or even (anti) and a lack thereof.

 

Would we die for our ©ountry...!? Will we (F)ight for it..!?

 

The Constitution set out as I see it to address all this in a plain, wholesale manner that the ordinary man

/citizen could easily grasp, perhaps it only diminishes their ~plain words if today we take it apart bit by

bit.

 

Those ~Men would not have wanted a populace in ~constant 'Fear of War' and while (and when) Peace

came to ~put away the 'trappings of War' so that an air of (now)calm could exist for the common man!!

 

Still maintain an Regular Army... yes!

But a ~ ' Down Guns ' ~ attitude for the populace...

 

...Though through fear of assault both individual and (N)ational, Guns and personal Gun ownership remain

a very heated topic indeed.

Edited February 6, 2012 by slimhouse