"But it does not, [...] making it entirely clear that the technology used for distribution of speech was not in any way to be considered."
Uh huh. Exactly. And the second does not say "muskets", or even "arms known to us in 1789", similarly making it clear that the specific technology was not ... being specified.
"Instead they talked of bearing arms. They did not say weapons, they did not say guns, they did not even talk of self defence, they said 'bear arms'."
Funny thing -- all this time I thought "arms" was a perfectly clear synonym for "weapons", with a vague implication that it meant current-for-the-time-period-of-the-speaker weapons. Swords, lances, muskets, rifles, ... Do you have sources that indicate my understanding is incorrect, or are you reaching for any excuse to cast doubt? I'll cheerfully accept correction, if you can show that the word really did mean something different at the time, but I'm not going to accept a mere, "Well, language changes and it might have meant something different."
Note that (a) the Supreme Court has, on at least one occasion, interpreted it to mean "the same kinds of arms as the military / a militia uses" (which would implicitly mean that the list of covered weapons changes along with technological progress and military doctrine), and (b) if the second amendment had said exactly that, then a bunch of weapons currently banned would be considered un-bannable because the military uses them.
Note also that we're clearly already imposing a later reinterpretation on "bear arms", since that phrase indicates going about armed, not just keeping arms in one's home, or "only carrying them to or from a gun shop, gunsmith's shop, or shooting range", but those very restrictions are common today. I'm pretty sure going back to an exact literal interpretation is not what you really want!
I continue to maintain that your style of counter-epistemology is a distraction at best, and a dishonest/insincere debating tactic at worst. Is it not more useful to look at what the Supreme Court has said it means over the past hundred years or so, than to play "what if" and "could it be" with one awkwardly constructed sentence?
Frankly, you appear to be using a derailing tactic. And I don't appreciate that.
"If either side were entirely serious about this, they wouldn't be arguing with each other about what the Second Amendment 'means'. They'd be demanding the nation made a fresh amendment to specify commonly accepted language for the Second Amendment, instead of trying to re-interpret something clearly not drafted for modern use."
Uh huh. Thank you for admitting right there that you're not being serious.
I've seen calls for exactly that -- a new, clearer amendment -- from folks on both sides. A little more often from anti-gun people than pro-gun people, I think, but seldom enough that I'm not sure my sample is large enough to say for sure whether one side says it more. The suggestion never goes very far. Serious or not serious, some folks on each side are too scared that a new version would wind up favouring their opponents' view instead of their own, and others are just afraid that the process would result in an even worse amendment with weasel words and ambiguities that would make the situation even muddier. (And still others regard it as ... another distraction, since the getting the process underway would take so long, not to mention how long the process itself of hammering out new wording enough people could agree on and trying to get it passed, would take too long for so uncertain a result when we could be trying to accomplish something now, in our current framework.
Personally, I think that (in theory at least), a new, more clearly worded amendment regarding the right to possess and carry weapons, would be a good thing. I don't see it as being likely enough to spend a whole lot of effort on right now, and share the concerns of those who fear that we'd just screw it up. If I see calls for such a thing more often, I'll join the chorus and do what I can to encourage a useful phrasing. Until then, it's just a background idea that doesn't affect the current debates on what we should be doing now.
I direct you to the historical study on the legal and government use of the phrase "To Bear Arms" during the 18th century. http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html#conclu The ammicus brief from a Ohio State University historical linguist. His conclusion is that from legal and government texts, the phrase "To Bear Arms" was used relatively distinctly from "To Carry Arms"; and to mean use of arms in a military, a militia, defence of the realm or in rebellion.
I also note this. The 1689 Bill of Rights from which this phrase was poached is still part of British Law. It's "Right to bare arms" was always, and from the start, meant to overturn the ban on Protestants from serving in armed forces or forming militia. Absolutely no one ever took this phrase to be an individual right to what ever hand portable weapons they could carry.
If the drafters of the second amendment wanted an individual mandate for ownership and carry of weapons, exactly why did they take the language from a law that was intended and applied only to taking membership of armed forces, guards and forming citizen militias? If you can't answer that, then you're using the same fuzzy definition of the term to mean what ever you want it to mean as you accuse others of over "assault weapons".
I'm rather annoyed by your accusations of "derailing" (After *you* brought up the original phrasing issue) and "thank you for admitting you are not serious". Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to score points?
See, if you'd led with that, I'd be a lot less suspicious of your tactics. But earlier you wrote, "They did not say weapons, they did not say guns, they did not even talk of self defence, they said 'bear arms'. And there's the rub. What exactly is 'baring arms'?" and "Could it be, perhaps, that the Second Amendment was stated as an Archaic Phrase, [...]".
You didn't say, "Hey, there's good evidence that the phrase meant something else; here's a URL or enough detail to start a Google search." Instead you went with a nebulous "do we even know what words mean?" way of saying things, which is more often used as a derailing tactic. So from here I see four possibilities (out of however many there actually are): (1) you were derailing and got lucky with Google after you were called on it, (2) you were baiting me into a trap to score points, (3) you really suck at this, (4) there's a serious mismatch of communication styles confusing us.
At this point I'm not sure how much I care which of those four it is, and here's why:
As you yourself first said, "If either side were entirely serious about this, they wouldn't be arguing with each other about what the Second Amendment 'means'," and here we are arguing about just that under an entry that did not address that in the first place -- you shifted my "these are not new, not unusual" to "these are not what 'gun' meant to the Framers"; you are the one who steered this thread to "what does the second amendment mean?"
Do I want to discuss this or score points? Well, I wasn't planning to discuss this in an entry that starts out with, "This isn't about whether we need more gun control or less or already have about the right amount, nor is it about what kinds of gun control are appropriate, nor whether guns make us safer. Nor is it about exactly what the Second Amendment means. It's just some terminology and a few uncomplicated background facts to make sure everyone's clear on what the words mean, when you put your opinions into words or hear somebody else opining." So congratulations, you have derailed this from what I was trying to accomplish, into ... what you said was a mark of people not being serious.
When I get around to an "ideas about what I thing we should / can do about guns" entry, I'll be taking into account this new-to-me linguistic information you've linked to (though I expect it to be less important in practical political terms than whatever the Supreme Court currently says it means). So thank you for teaching me something I didn't know. At the same time, fuck you for the derailing. As contradictory as that sounds, both the thank-you and the fuck-you are sincere.
I said what I said because I thought that the Second Amendment being archaically phrased should be patently obvious.
You wanted to say that people calling semi-automatics a recent invention were stupid, I pointed out that they are recent when taken on a historical time scale including the second amendment. I mean, my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames, you were the one who departed off into "what the founding fathers meant". If there was any derailing here, you were the one who jumped the tracks. Don't bring up "what the founding fathers meant" if you don't want to discuss it.
And to be frank, you do not get to make an argument, then claim any rebuttal to that argument is "derailment" of what you wanted to say. At least not, and retain my respect. Which you have lost.
"my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames"
Uh huh. Which you thought was important to point out in case anybody reading forgot that 1880 and 1789 aren't right next to each other, not because you wanted to recast "new/modern" in terms of originalism?
"my respect. Which you have lost"
I am completely unsurprised that the loss of respect is mutual. That was expected. For the record, I consider the derailment to have begun with your first comment, not with your response to my saying why your first comment wasn't relevant.
Well, if you wanted to say my point was irrelevant, and you considered it "derailment", why did you post a five paragraph ramble on original intent? I mean, if you really thought that I was trying to derail the debate, why accelerate off the tracks with all your might? Did you really think I would not think you actually wanted to discuss the things you had brought up in your reply?
Bringing up "Derailment" the way you have is one of the truly petulant "internet argument techniques". Want to wind back from taking an awkward position on something, cry "Derailment" and insist that all that part of the discussion be ignored.
(no subject)
Uh huh. Exactly. And the second does not say "muskets", or even "arms known to us in 1789", similarly making it clear that the specific technology was not ... being specified.
"Instead they talked of bearing arms. They did not say weapons, they did not say guns, they did not even talk of self defence, they said 'bear arms'."
Funny thing -- all this time I thought "arms" was a perfectly clear synonym for "weapons", with a vague implication that it meant current-for-the-time-period-of-the-speaker weapons. Swords, lances, muskets, rifles, ... Do you have sources that indicate my understanding is incorrect, or are you reaching for any excuse to cast doubt? I'll cheerfully accept correction, if you can show that the word really did mean something different at the time, but I'm not going to accept a mere, "Well, language changes and it might have meant something different."
Note that (a) the Supreme Court has, on at least one occasion, interpreted it to mean "the same kinds of arms as the military / a militia uses" (which would implicitly mean that the list of covered weapons changes along with technological progress and military doctrine), and (b) if the second amendment had said exactly that, then a bunch of weapons currently banned would be considered un-bannable because the military uses them.
Note also that we're clearly already imposing a later reinterpretation on "bear arms", since that phrase indicates going about armed, not just keeping arms in one's home, or "only carrying them to or from a gun shop, gunsmith's shop, or shooting range", but those very restrictions are common today. I'm pretty sure going back to an exact literal interpretation is not what you really want!
I continue to maintain that your style of counter-epistemology is a distraction at best, and a dishonest/insincere debating tactic at worst. Is it not more useful to look at what the Supreme Court has said it means over the past hundred years or so, than to play "what if" and "could it be" with one awkwardly constructed sentence?
Frankly, you appear to be using a derailing tactic. And I don't appreciate that.
"If either side were entirely serious about this, they wouldn't be arguing with each other about what the Second Amendment 'means'. They'd be demanding the nation made a fresh amendment to specify commonly accepted language for the Second Amendment, instead of trying to re-interpret something clearly not drafted for modern use."
Uh huh. Thank you for admitting right there that you're not being serious.
I've seen calls for exactly that -- a new, clearer amendment -- from folks on both sides. A little more often from anti-gun people than pro-gun people, I think, but seldom enough that I'm not sure my sample is large enough to say for sure whether one side says it more. The suggestion never goes very far. Serious or not serious, some folks on each side are too scared that a new version would wind up favouring their opponents' view instead of their own, and others are just afraid that the process would result in an even worse amendment with weasel words and ambiguities that would make the situation even muddier. (And still others regard it as ... another distraction, since the getting the process underway would take so long, not to mention how long the process itself of hammering out new wording enough people could agree on and trying to get it passed, would take too long for so uncertain a result when we could be trying to accomplish something now, in our current framework.
Personally, I think that (in theory at least), a new, more clearly worded amendment regarding the right to possess and carry weapons, would be a good thing. I don't see it as being likely enough to spend a whole lot of effort on right now, and share the concerns of those who fear that we'd just screw it up. If I see calls for such a thing more often, I'll join the chorus and do what I can to encourage a useful phrasing. Until then, it's just a background idea that doesn't affect the current debates on what we should be doing now.
(no subject)
I also note this. The 1689 Bill of Rights from which this phrase was poached is still part of British Law. It's "Right to bare arms" was always, and from the start, meant to overturn the ban on Protestants from serving in armed forces or forming militia. Absolutely no one ever took this phrase to be an individual right to what ever hand portable weapons they could carry.
If the drafters of the second amendment wanted an individual mandate for ownership and carry of weapons, exactly why did they take the language from a law that was intended and applied only to taking membership of armed forces, guards and forming citizen militias? If you can't answer that, then you're using the same fuzzy definition of the term to mean what ever you want it to mean as you accuse others of over "assault weapons".
I'm rather annoyed by your accusations of "derailing" (After *you* brought up the original phrasing issue) and "thank you for admitting you are not serious". Do you want to discuss this, or do you want to score points?
(no subject)
You didn't say, "Hey, there's good evidence that the phrase meant something else; here's a URL or enough detail to start a Google search." Instead you went with a nebulous "do we even know what words mean?" way of saying things, which is more often used as a derailing tactic. So from here I see four possibilities (out of however many there actually are): (1) you were derailing and got lucky with Google after you were called on it, (2) you were baiting me into a trap to score points, (3) you really suck at this, (4) there's a serious mismatch of communication styles confusing us.
At this point I'm not sure how much I care which of those four it is, and here's why:
As you yourself first said, "If either side were entirely serious about this, they wouldn't be arguing with each other about what the Second Amendment 'means'," and here we are arguing about just that under an entry that did not address that in the first place -- you shifted my "these are not new, not unusual" to "these are not what 'gun' meant to the Framers"; you are the one who steered this thread to "what does the second amendment mean?"
Do I want to discuss this or score points? Well, I wasn't planning to discuss this in an entry that starts out with, "This isn't about whether we need more gun control or less or already have about the right amount, nor is it about what kinds of gun control are appropriate, nor whether guns make us safer. Nor is it about exactly what the Second Amendment means. It's just some terminology and a few uncomplicated background facts to make sure everyone's clear on what the words mean, when you put your opinions into words or hear somebody else opining." So congratulations, you have derailed this from what I was trying to accomplish, into ... what you said was a mark of people not being serious.
When I get around to an "ideas about what I thing we should / can do about guns" entry, I'll be taking into account this new-to-me linguistic information you've linked to (though I expect it to be less important in practical political terms than whatever the Supreme Court currently says it means). So thank you for teaching me something I didn't know. At the same time, fuck you for the derailing. As contradictory as that sounds, both the thank-you and the fuck-you are sincere.
(no subject)
You wanted to say that people calling semi-automatics a recent invention were stupid, I pointed out that they are recent when taken on a historical time scale including the second amendment. I mean, my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames, you were the one who departed off into "what the founding fathers meant". If there was any derailing here, you were the one who jumped the tracks. Don't bring up "what the founding fathers meant" if you don't want to discuss it.
And to be frank, you do not get to make an argument, then claim any rebuttal to that argument is "derailment" of what you wanted to say. At least not, and retain my respect. Which you have lost.
(no subject)
Uh huh. Which you thought was important to point out in case anybody reading forgot that 1880 and 1789 aren't right next to each other, not because you wanted to recast "new/modern" in terms of originalism?
"my respect. Which you have lost"
I am completely unsurprised that the loss of respect is mutual. That was expected. For the record, I consider the derailment to have begun with your first comment, not with your response to my saying why your first comment wasn't relevant.
(no subject)
Bringing up "Derailment" the way you have is one of the truly petulant "internet argument techniques". Want to wind back from taking an awkward position on something, cry "Derailment" and insist that all that part of the discussion be ignored.
(no subject)