Repeal the Second Amendment, says former Justice Stevens.

Dave:

Thanks for the clarification.  With respect to point number 3 (restated below), Baron's analysis assumes that no rights to self defense or bearing weapons existed before the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.  However, it appears that there was a right to both self defense and bearing arms prior to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment (under the British common law).  However, these rights to self defense and bearing arms wer apparently limited by class and religion.  See  amici brief of Professor Malcolm referenced above.  Malcolm's conclusion is that the citizen militia was an expansion of these rights (just as eliminating class and religion requirements from this right was an expansion of this right).  IMHO, Baron's position only makes sense if you fail to acknowledge that there were similar, albeit not identical rights, when the colonies were subject to British common law.  Further, Baron's analysis assumes a contraction of rights from the British common law to the adoption of the 2nd amendment,  Clearly, our revolutionary war was fought to expand the rights of the colonials (not to contract them).

Let me know your thoughts.

==============================================================================

Dave Schmidt Point 3 (attributable to  a passage in “Guns and Grammar” by Dennis Baron): 

"that the first part of the amendment specifies the reason for the second, that the right to keep and bear arms is tied directly to the need for a well-regulated militia;"

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

You have made some interesting arguments with respect to my analysis.  

Sorry if my italicizing wasn’t clear. Those interesting arguments were made in “Guns and Grammar” by Dennis Baron, a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois.

ETA: My thoughts are that Nos. 1 to 3 are more germane to the clause of yours I flagged.

this all a very strong argument for repeal. When the meaning of language in the amendment is no longer obvious to anyone, it has outlived any possible usefulness in guiding policy. 

I do note however that gun ownership proponents rarely take on the phrase "well-regulated." That one is a lot more difficult to explain away. 

RealityForAll said:

Dave:

Thanks for the clarification.  With respect to point number 3 (restated below), Baron's analysis assumes that no rights to self defense or bearing weapons existed before the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.  

Baron’s analysis in that point — like your comment that I replied to — is a grammatical one, not a historical one. I’m happy to discuss it on those terms. If you’d rather not, and just want to let your assertion that it’s “merely an introductory or prefatory clause” stand as it is, that’s fine, too.

(For the record, Baron doesn’t “assume.” He explains in his paper how he reached his conclusions. The link remains there for further reading by any others wondering how his positions might or might not make sense.)

ml1 said:

I do note however that gun ownership proponents rarely take on the phrase "well-regulated." That one is a lot more difficult to explain away. 

They take it on by arguing that the militia clause is nonrestrictive and, therefore, beside the point.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

I do note however that gun ownership proponents rarely take on the phrase "well-regulated." That one is a lot more difficult to explain away. 

They take it on by arguing that the militia clause is nonrestrictive and, therefore, beside the point.

yes.  and as you've argued (persuasively), such an interpretation makes little sense linguistically.

.

[I briefly posted a question before remembering that RealityForAll had already answered it by saying the militia debate is a red herring.]

I have a problem with changing anything in the Bill of Rights.

I'd have no problem with an Amendment prohibiting a standing army.

Why? Even to repeal a sh** amendment like the 2nd?

LOST said:

I have a problem with changing anything in the Bill of Rights.

....

Slippery slope.

drummerboy,

What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable  interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?

Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/repeal-the-second-amendment-says-former-justice-stevens#new-comment-form

TomR

LOST said:

Slippery slope.

Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope

google is your friend. Look for the history of the NRA's position on the 2nd amendment.

here's a start http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

They used to be FOR gun control. ferchrissakes.

Or are you quibbling with my "unreasonable and legally untenable" comment?

I'm not sure exactly to whom your'e referring in your second comment - all I can say is that a lot of pro-torture folk came out of the woodwork post 9/11.

Tom_R said:

drummerboy,

What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable  interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?

Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/repeal-the-second-amendment-says-former-justice-stevens#new-comment-form


TomR

drummerboy,

What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable  interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?

Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?

Answer, or don't answer.

I presume that you had something in mind when you wrote that which you did. Share it with us.

TomR

are you disputing that the NRA changed their position regarding the second amendment such that they are now actually claiming the right to a gun is God given? Seems to me that is both unreasonable and legally untenable.

Are you disputing that since 9/11 we have had people promoting a pro-torture outlook in our public discourse? And how does a government embark on a torture regime without having pro-torture people to enable it?

Anyway, not sure of your point. I don't feel the need to prove to you that the sky is sometimes blue. Some things are a given, and as such, proving them is a waste of time.

Tom_R said:

drummerboy,

What is the totally unreasonable and legally untenable  interpretation of the 2nd amendment which the NRA posited some decades ago?

Also, as long as I have your attention; who are the pro-torture persons of whom you wrote?

Answer, or don't answer.

I presume that you had something in mind when you wrote that which you did. Share it with us.

TomR

What kind of an idiot thinks that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?

I mean, really.

Exactly. Right there in the Bible is the right to own 17 AR-15's.

Robert_Casotto said:

What kind of an idiot thinks that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?




I mean, really.

Robert_Casotto said:

What kind of an idiot thinks that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?

Uh oh.... he's going to start talking about his leaf blower again.

Seriously, though, God may have given us Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness but "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Not so much.

we live in a country where many, many people think there's a God-given right to an AR-15, but not a God-given right to an annual physical.

ml1 said:

we live in a country where many, many people think there's a God-given right to an AR-15, but not a God-given right to an annual physical..

Who is barred by government from getting a physical?

Just as there is no right to force someone to buy you a gun, there is no right to force someone to pay for your physical.

I want to understand the relevance of your comment. Can you help? Thanks.

the government "forces" us to pay for a lot of stuff that are considered rights.  Like an army and law enforcement to protect our lives and property. We are "forced" to pay for the cops to show up at someone's house if it's burglarized. If we have a right to the preservation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" enforced by the police, why not also by health care professionals?  It's an arbitrary collective decision that there is no right of the people to physical health.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

ml1 said:

we live in a country where many, many people think there's a God-given right to an AR-15, but not a God-given right to an annual physical..

Who is barred by government from getting a physical?




Just as there is no right to force someone to buy you a gun, there is no right to force someone to pay for your physical.




I want to understand the relevance of your comment. Can you help? Thanks.

I can think of only one Amendment to the Constitution that reduced the rights and freedoms of Americans, rather than increasing rights and freedom. It also made a serious dent in the pursuit of happiness. It had to be repealed a few years later. My memory is that that was unique.

ml1 said:

LOST said:

Slippery slope.

Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope

I do not agree. If we put some of the rights set forth in the 4th,5th or 6th Amendments up to a referendum I am not sanguine about the possible results. While we are not talking about referenda, once it is shown that the Bill of Rights can be amended it creates an opening for further attempts at amendment.

We can preserve the Bill of Rights as written and litigate over interpretation and implementation.

ml1 said:

the government "forces" us to pay for a lot of stuff that are considered rights.  Like an army and law enforcement to protect our lives and property. We are "forced" to pay for the cops to show up at someone's house if it's burglarized. If we have a right to the preservation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" enforced by the police, why not also by health care professionals?  It's an arbitrary collective decision that there is no right of the people to physical health.  

I agree completely. We already have a taxpayer funded federal Department of Health as well as a Center for Disease Control. To my knowledge every municipality has a taxpayer funded Health Department. When I was a child tax money was used to administer the polio vaccine to every school child. So we have already decided that Health is a legitimate government function.

Is it really such a stretch to have taxpayer funded basic health care, such as an annual checkup?

Jackson_Fusion said:

I want to understand the relevance of your comment.

Metonymy.

What’s a guy have to do to get people to talk about grammar?

LOST said:

I can think of only one Amendment to the Constitution that reduced the rights and freedoms of Americans, rather than increasing rights and freedom. It also made a serious dent in the pursuit of happiness. It had to be repealed a few years later. My memory is that that was unique.

ml1 said:

LOST said:

Slippery slope.

Your logical fallacy is: Slippery Slope

I do not agree. If we put some of the rights set forth in the 4th,5th or 6th Amendments up to a referendum I am not sanguine about the possible results. While we are not talking about referenda, once it is shown that the Bill of Rights can be amended it creates an opening for further attempts at amendment.

We can preserve the Bill of Rights as written and litigate over interpretation and implementation.

that's not a slippery slope argument however.  You're arguing that the majority of people wouldn't support retaining the 4th, 5th or 6th Amendments. Repealing the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be a necessary condition for repealing the others if some perceived national security threat made people decide to curtail privacy rights.

I typed "Slippery slope" in a hurry before leaving for Seder. I will research the logical fallacy at my leisure.

I was not aware that national defense was an individual right. Would that mean if I get kidnapped by ISIS that I have an enforcible right to demand military assistance? Can I sue the government to provide a carrier battle group for my rescue, for example?

I seem to recall lawsuits against law enforcement that were settled by the courts decades ago asserting that not only is there no individual right to law enforcement action, that law enforcement collectively had no duty to any individual. Has that changed? 

Why stop at an individual right to checkups? Certainly nearly everything can have an impact on health. Is government (through taxation) obligated to provide them all?

TiA.

ml1 said:

the government "forces" us to pay for a lot of stuff that are considered rights.  Like an army and law enforcement to protect our lives and property. We are "forced" to pay for the cops to show up at someone's house if it's burglarized. If we have a right to the preservation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" enforced by the police, why not also by health care professionals?  It's an arbitrary collective decision that there is no right of the people to physical health.  

ml1 said:

the government "forces" us to pay for a lot of stuff that are considered rights.  Like an army and law enforcement to protect our lives and property. We are "forced" to pay for the cops to show up at someone's house if it's burglarized. If we have a right to the preservation of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" enforced by the police, why not also by health care professionals?  It's an arbitrary collective decision that there is no right of the people to physical health.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

ml1 said:

we live in a country where many, many people think there's a God-given right to an AR-15, but not a God-given right to an annual physical..

Who is barred by government from getting a physical?




Just as there is no right to force someone to buy you a gun, there is no right to force someone to pay for your physical.




I want to understand the relevance of your comment. Can you help? Thanks.

then I suppose those “inalienable rights” aren’t rights at all if people are not entitled to having those rights  protected 

ml1 said:

then I suppose those “inalienable rights” aren’t rights at all if people are not entitled to having those rights  protected 

The ones in the Bill of Rights, a bill of restraint against the US govt, reserving rights for her people, are protected. The ones you’re talking about (the right to not be kidnapped by foreign state actors, the right to always be protected effectively from criminals, the right to good health) are not.

And there we go.

the discussion above my earlier comment was about “inalienable rights”, so that was the relevance. 

Now, it’s just a tangent.