10-19-2024, 11:34 PM
(10-19-2024, 11:01 PM)Maxmars Wrote: [Oh my! I'm in one of those moods... please forgive me if I seem like I'm being a "dick" about what you said. I promise I respect you, and I am not trying to be a jerk or anything like it... but I find a lot of room to comment on your statements...]
I like you too.
You might disagree, but I believe the Constitution "intent" had little to do with guns in the specific sense, and everything to do with codifying that citizens must always be capable of defending themselves... to have access to the means to provide that defense - and that the pursuit of that capability was not be imposed upon by externally applied rationale, so long as it was benign.
Well, I'm not sure about the "benign" part, but in fact I don't disagree with you at all here. 2a seems to recognize that "the security of Free States" is necessary for the Constitution to be more than paper, so I guess Lincoln would argue that not being "benign" would be malignantly destructive to the Union, invalidating the Constitution, and is thus implied.
Tech had nothing to do with it. Only a time-locked fool would think that weapons weren't ever going to improve or become more formidable... The minutiae of specifics was left to those who are living in whatever time came after them.
A bit of a diversion; I wonder if, say, Jefferson would consider groups such as "Anonymous" to be militias, in an online State, doing battle with meme-warfare? I bet he would! He'd prolly be all in to that. We know that derpa and jsocks think of such things as weapons.
Not to be trite, but bioweapons... tanks... these are not for personal defense (except maybe for some exceedingly paranoid or stressed out individuals.)
And here's a great big hair to split: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...". So is it a personal right only? Or should militias have capabilities of nation-state level of warfare? Remember, the USA originally didn't have a standing army...
I don't care for the word "infringement" in these contexts... it implies victimhood. It weakens the subject. Maybe I just don't have the right words, but I find the whole topic of "rights" as opposed to "Constitutional rights" to be mishandled and mangled all too frequently.
No, that's wrong. It doesn't imply "victimhood", in the call the whaambulance sense. It refers to actions of the State that conflict with the People's rights. The Constitution does not, as is commonly thought, "grant rights", rather it explicitly acknowledges some rights, and clearly defines where the State may infringe them. Or not.
I think we Agree and you Know this, so I will stop now as I am Capitalizing many Nouns.
