Skip to main content

View Diary: When high-capacity magazines are justified (297 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And that extends to an individual right to (5+ / 0-)

    keep and bear arms, say for the purpose of self-defense, exactly how?

    Seems to me you're making the argument for a constitutional foundation for a gun control, as original intent of the Second Amendment was purely to ensure the state-organized militias would have a ready supply of armed and capable men.

    And that brings the whole "well regulated" clause directly into play.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:21:17 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, happymisanthropy

      "And that extends to an individual right to keep and bear arms, say for the purpose of self-defense, exactly how?"

      Basically, the founders thought the individual right was obvious and self evident.  So obvious that they didn't bother to codify it.

      In the same way that they didn't codify that people have a right to breath air.

    •  The problem... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan, happymisanthropy

      Is that people think that the preamble of the second amendment is a limitation of scope.

      It's not.  

      The right itself stands alone.  They could have written the second as just "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and it would be functionally no different.

      The preamble, "well regulated militia" is not a limitation.  IT IS A NARRATIVE.  It is an anecdote, a justification that the founders wished to inject as a cautionary note for future generations about the need to retain the capacity to resist a tyrannical state.

      The second half of the amendment, the right, is not functionally altered by the preamble.  It sets out an individual right.

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

      It does not matter why.  But the founders were more preachy then that, they wanted to inject the narrative of their struggle into the laws, as a lesson.  Thus we arrive at:

      "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."

      Narrative preamble
      Codified right

      •  example: Iraq War resolution (0+ / 0-)

        Same structure as the 2nd Amendment.

        "Whereas Iraq has WMDs
        we're letting Bush invade."

        It has no effect on the function of the law if they turn out to be wrong and/or lying about their stated intent.

        •  I don't see (0+ / 0-)

          How does that affect the second?

          The founders decided to give a preamble on the second.  It wasn't necessary.  

          Agreement or disagreement with the preamble does not affect the right.

          If anything the existence of the preamble should be taken as an attempt by the founders to assume you are enlightened.  

          The ten commandments came with no preamble.  Just flat statements, to either be taken as law or rejected entirely.  The founders, in providing context, did you a service by assuming you could comprehend their motive.

      •  Hmm, not sure if they had the luxury of (0+ / 0-)

        including off-topic narratives into their documents back then.

        In particular, do you have any idea how freakin' rare and precious italicized font was back then?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • International (18)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site