Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Second Amendment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jagger" data-source="post: 421907" data-attributes="member: 16628"><p>The point is:</p><p></p><p>The Second Amendment contains two clauses that don't coincide. In 1789, the meaning of the term "well regulated militia" wasn't equivalent to the meaning of the word "people." </p><p></p><p>The term "well regulated militia" meant "properly adjusted standing force of the nation." The "word" people meant "a nation; those who compose a community."</p><p></p><p>The Second Amendment was obviously intended to be ambiguous. We could play junior history detectives from now until the Lord comes again and rains down his wrath on the Flying Monkeys of the Right Wing but that probably wouldn't get us any closer than we are now to knowing exactly what those Federalist butt monkeys were thinking when they wrote the Second Amendment.</p><p></p><p>Fortunately however, we don't have to do that, because there existed, in 1789, a system of "rules of construction", or "rules of legal interpretation", which had been established to ascertain the meaning of ambiguous language in a constitution. All we have to do is take the words of the Second Amendment, set aside our personal views, apply the rule and accept the results.</p><p></p><p>In 1789, the rule of legal interpretation applicable to a situation where the parts of a legal expression didn't coincide was that, "the less important should give way to the more important part; <strong>the means should be sacrificed to the end</strong>, rather than the end to the means." </p><p></p><p>The end being sought by the Second Amendment is "the security of a free state." The means to that end is "a well regulated militia." "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" functions in a subordinate capacity as merely an auxiliary means to the end of "the security of a free state."</p><p></p><p>The applicable rule of construction dictates that we sacrifice the meaning of the word "people" to the end of "the security of a free state." Thus, we are compelled to construe the word "people" to mean "well regulated militia", and understand the second clause of the Amendment to mean, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jagger, post: 421907, member: 16628"] The point is: The Second Amendment contains two clauses that don't coincide. In 1789, the meaning of the term "well regulated militia" wasn't equivalent to the meaning of the word "people." The term "well regulated militia" meant "properly adjusted standing force of the nation." The "word" people meant "a nation; those who compose a community." The Second Amendment was obviously intended to be ambiguous. We could play junior history detectives from now until the Lord comes again and rains down his wrath on the Flying Monkeys of the Right Wing but that probably wouldn't get us any closer than we are now to knowing exactly what those Federalist butt monkeys were thinking when they wrote the Second Amendment. Fortunately however, we don't have to do that, because there existed, in 1789, a system of "rules of construction", or "rules of legal interpretation", which had been established to ascertain the meaning of ambiguous language in a constitution. All we have to do is take the words of the Second Amendment, set aside our personal views, apply the rule and accept the results. In 1789, the rule of legal interpretation applicable to a situation where the parts of a legal expression didn't coincide was that, "the less important should give way to the more important part; [B]the means should be sacrificed to the end[/B], rather than the end to the means." The end being sought by the Second Amendment is "the security of a free state." The means to that end is "a well regulated militia." "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" functions in a subordinate capacity as merely an auxiliary means to the end of "the security of a free state." The applicable rule of construction dictates that we sacrifice the meaning of the word "people" to the end of "the security of a free state." Thus, we are compelled to construe the word "people" to mean "well regulated militia", and understand the second clause of the Amendment to mean, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Second Amendment
Top