trekwiz: trekwiz: trekwiz:trekwiz:trekwiz:strengthins0lidarity:I told my dad this after he c
trekwiz: trekwiz: trekwiz: trekwiz: trekwiz: strengthins0lidarity: I told my dad this after he claimed Virginia was trying to “take his guns away” (we live in Missouri). Do all gun nuts think like this? They can’t even understand the actual words of the 2nd amendment–did you expect them to actually be reasonable about guns? The amendment is literally silent on any idea related to gun ownership, and solely pertains to who has a right to combat and maintenance roles within the militia. I just can’t understate how seriously illiterate the notion of a “gun right” is, regarding the 2nd amendment. Here is the text, “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.” The subordinate clause requires that the context be the militia–ignoring the dependent clause and interpreting a gun right is objectively wrong. A dependent clause cannot stand on its own as a sentence; it always provides meaning by limiting the context of what comes after. Here’s an example: “Working at 2 AM, 4 PM is a reasonable bed time.” If you interpreted this statement to mean that 4 PM is a generally reasonable bed time, there’s no discussion: you made an error. What is being communicated is that before a particularly early work day, which is different from other days, 4 PM is a decent time to go to sleep. This is the function of a subordinate clause. This means the 2nd amendment must relate to the miltia–and because an earlier version of it included a conscientious objector clause, there’s no room to pretend otherwise. You’ve probably heard, “but federal law defines the militia as every able bodied American.” This is false: the Constitution supercedes any and all federal law. The Constitution already defines the militia as a military organization in Articles 1 and 2, so contradictory federal law is irrelevant. Article 1, Section 8 states that congress has the authority “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Here we learn that the militia has an organized structure, its weapons are provided by congress, and members must follow rules assigned by Congress when they’re serving their country. We also learn that states get to appoint the officers within the command structure, and states are responsible for providing adequate training. In the same section it’s also noted that Congress has the power, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;” This directly establishes that the militia is a law enforcement body as needed, and it can be used to put down armed revolution in addition to fighting enemies so long as they’re on US soil (insurrection and invasion happen at home). Next we learn in Article 2, Section 2 that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” This is telling us that during war, the president is in command of the militia just as he or she is in command of the other military branches. This is important because it establishes that the militia is in fact a military organization, and that it does answer to government direction. Overall, what does this mean? The militia isn’t a bunch of rednecks with guns getting drunk and shooting at squirrels for the lulz. The militia is an internal defense force with a local scope, that follows a chain of command leading up to the president. It’s armed with battlefield weaponry, but strictly under the supervision of the state government and Congress. All directly and explicitly established as constitutional edict. Federal law cannot declare otherwise without a new constitutional amendment. So let’s get back to the text of the 2nd amendment. We know we’re talking about a local military organization as we proceed. It then establishes, within that context, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It’s a safe bet that you don’t quite know what “keep” or “bear arms” mean. The NRA has intentionally confused the meaning of these phrases for monetary gain. They’re a gun industry group meant to increase sales of guns. But these words do have a specific meaning, a meaning the Founders would have intended when they chose those words (because the new meanings didn’t exist then), and they have nothing to do with gun ownership. “Keep,” in context, doesn’t mean “to have.” This is the verb form of the word “upkeep.” If you look back through the constitution, you’ll notice the writers didn’t determine who’s responsible for maintaining the militia’s armaments, despite determining who provides them (Congress does, not the militia soldier). Because of the potential for harm to the user with a poorly maintained weapon, would it perhaps be prudent to guarantee every militia soldier the right to maintain their own weapon, instead of trusting it to a neighbor who may well have a grudge, or alternate allegiances? This is a rather important consideration, especially in a time period where guns weren’t very reliable and your safety may have been impacted by poor maintenance or sabotage. This part of the amendment establishes a procedure that hasn’t been established elsewhere in the Constitution. Ok, so what about “bear arms”? If you’re hunting deer, you’re not bearing arms on the animal. And if you defend your home from a burglar, you haven’t borne arms against them. The meaning of “bear arms” never covers these situations. Bearing arms is solely the act of using weapons on the battlefield. It refers to using your weapons in warfare. That’s it. If you’ve been “prevented from protecting your home from intruders,” congrats, your right to bear arms remains completely untouched.Let’s also consider: “being necessary to the security of a free State.” How’s this relevant? If, due to limited resources, the government has to choose between defending trade in NYC, or a small town in Kansas, it’s not hard to figure out what they’ll choose. Your community is at risk, and the government may not choose to defend it; a local military organization that can be called up separately from the main military branches is the only way to guarantee security in all places. Otherwise, you could fall to an enemy who would exert their own form of government. The 2nd amendment literally grants the right to defend your community in war, to receive adequate training to do so, and the right to trust your weapon’s safety to your own maintenance. The illiterate reading of the second amendment would establish where the militia’s weapons come from. But the answer directly contradicts Article 1, Section 8 which determines that Congress has the power to arm the militia. These are mutually exclusive concepts: either the militia is made up of civilians who must self-arm, or Congress has the power to determine how to arm the militia. For this to be a valid interpretation, historically, Article 1, Section 8 would have been treated as superseded by the 2nd amendment. It hasn’t been.Two important processes for the militia were not established in the Constitution: who maintains (keeps) the militia’s weapons, and who has the right to fight for their community (i.e. you can’t be required to sit out a fight, or take on a support role) on the battlefield as part of their militia service (bearing arms).What’s more likely? That the 2nd amendment would have been written to supersede a part of the Constitution that has never been acknowledged as overturned, or that it was written to establish important processes that were never put in place before?To suggest the second amendment has any relevance to gun ownership is to signal the poor quality of one’s reading comprehension. It’s not just an alternate interpretation, it’s objectively wrong. -- source link
Tumblr Blog : mysharona1987.tumblr.com