2nd amendment musings.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

Indian wisdom: Why do white men plant grass where it doesn't want to grow?

Suburbia feng shuie?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I sometimes think seeing an attempt at an armed insurrection would be amusing. OTOH, if they became frequent I would imagine the annihilations could gain some mass public sympathy.



Bob nailed that one.

Got help with the lawn care, I see....

[Pio1980]

America Can Be Pro-Gun — and Pro-Gun Control http://nbcnews.to/2xvsDtQ

[Pio1980]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...endment-106856

[Pio1980]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ond-amendment/

[Pio1980]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/politi...hts-ncna808966

[Pio1980]

Considering the precise grammar of the second amendment, it could be taken that, minus the militia for National defense as the purpose, it has been null and void for around two centuries. The "rights" many folks attach to the 2nd are thus only assumptions, guaranteed by actually nothing in the law, Scalia on Heller notwithstanding for armed home defense with a pistol, full stop.
What makes this interesting is that the fifth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments would then direct privately kept weapons policies, effectively throwing them to the States and "the people" without a rewrite of the 2nd enumerating rights and policy.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/...-rights/33796/

[Pio1980]

D of C v Heller, a 2nd amendment compromise?
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-...ht-to-own-guns

[Pio1980]

To understand the amendment as written, let's try writing a 2nd Amendment analogue with the same form and grammatical structure.

"During an evacuation drill with safety as a concern, the means of an orderly exit by the students, shall not be impeded."

Now, let's see the procedure superceded by;
"Rather than periodic evacuation drills, staff will guide what to do in the event of an emergency."

Does this change the meaning without a student fire drill, meaning that students may now leave anytime they want, any way they want, as often as they want?
No, it doesn't. Without the first portion in force, the entire former policy is effectively nullified by the absence of the reason for it's purpose.

We haven't had militias recognised for the defence for couple centuries, the purpose of the amendment. We have the armed forces, issued standard weaponry with which to drill and defend the Republic. Prospective soldiers do not have to appear for service equipped with grampy's flintlock musket from over the fireplace.

The first part of the second cannot be disregarded to make it mean having as much of any kind of arms as one can accumulate, displayed loaded, anytime, anywhere, because it can't, and it does not. It simply means what is tersely written, and nothing else.
We are left with assumptions rather than rights, not supported by the 2nd Amendment.

[Pio1980]

In spite of agreeing with the notion of reasonable armed self defense, I find Heller defective as unsupported by the second amendment in spite of the Supremes, based on the evacuation drill anology cited previously.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php