In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A is an individual right, not a militia right.

yes...."the right of the people" is a recurring theme in the Bill of Rights

[wdmso]

The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

[wdmso]

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990

in the 1970's The NRA pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment,

Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. (happens here )

1980s
Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms

The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion

But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years.

and if you think it cant swing back your not paying attention

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

"A fraud on the American public.”

I think I brought this up a few months ago that all this 2nd Amendment outrage was just a political stunt to push back against the liberal social reforms of the 1960's.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The 2a supporter here are doing just what guy says .. wanting it both ways

Unfortunately, many of those who interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint (especially gun rights advocates who think the 2nd amendment gives them an unfettered right to own and carry firearms of almost any type), apparently want the best of all possible worlds:

1) First they tell us that the 2nd amendment must be interpreted literally, and that every single word that the Framers wrote means exactly what it says (an Originalist interpretation),

2) Then they tell us that they know what the Framers meant because the words in the 2nd amendment are plain and clear for all to see,

3) But (and this is a big “but”) they mix together both modern 21st century definitions and meanings in order to make the 2nd amendment come out the way they want it to!

If one is to interpret the 2nd amendment from an Originalist viewpoint, isn't it fair to ask that any erstwhile interpretation of said amendment stick to the circumstances and social context the Framers found themselves in, including not just what they wrote regarding this issue but their own history viz a viz the use of the colonial militia in the United States? (In other words, go with an Originalist interpretation or take a more modern approach to the 2nd amendment, whatever you like, just don't mix the two together in such a self-serving manner, or at the very least recognize and admit to what you are doing).

what the hell are you talking about?

"erstwhile"....that was a good one