Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Djinnwrath t1_j5q9cdr wrote

Reply to comment by crankyape1534 in Security, Me, Mixed Media, 2018 by Stickfigurewisdom

It's only a "fundamental right" because right wing extremists employ purposeful misinterpretation of the second amendment.

An originalist reading of 2A by a court that isn't compromised politically in no way guarantees private individual ownership.

1

crankyape1534 t1_j5qb95f wrote

There is no misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. It is the right to bear arms. We have that right not for hunting or just personal protection. It’s there incase our government is corrupt and takes too much power. We can use guns for hunting etc which is also within our rights, but it’s not a right wing narrative. It’s just the constitution and those who appreciate the rights given. It’s not a right or left things. That’s partisan politics and party line drawing. I know democrats with guns and republicans.

2

Djinnwrath t1_j5qblat wrote

You are incorrect. I will explain.

The whole sentence only makes sense if you read it in it's entirety (you know like a sentence is supposed to be read). If they were separate things as right-wing activists argue then they wouldn't be in the same sentence.

As for the rest of it if you aren't familiar with what surplusage is (how they said the entirety of the first part of the sentence is irrelevant) and how that flies smack dab into the face of the Constitution as it has been read since at the latest 1803 in Marbury v Madison then...

To show what I mean

[[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..., shall not be infringed.]]

See now people owning arms for personal use argument doesn't work for you. You just interpret it your way because you like the right-wing activists ruling. This reading doesn't make any less sense. You don't get to just cut up a sentence to suit your views which is exactly what the right wing activists did.

It's not because if we act like they're separate things then the first part says nothing, does nothing.

[[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,]]

If they were separate things this is all the first part says. It says nothing. It's surplusage. That flies in the face of the way the law (all law [except for right-wing activists who read what they want]) has been read since 1803 in Marbury v Madison.

If you read the amendment in a non-right-wing activist fashion as it was in Miller (the way it had been read in the US up until right-wing activists in 2008) it's a collective right not an individual one. Which would mean the Guard is largely what the 2nd it talking about and the Feds can't stop states from having their own militia and arming/training it.

Grammatically two separate non-linked ideas should not be contained in the same sentence without semicolons or coordinating conjunctions.

1

crankyape1534 t1_j5qdx9d wrote

Second amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”It’s just that simple. Read it how your mind likes and it still doesn’t change the text.

Regardless if you believe in the right or not, it’s still not about guns. Criminals break laws and don’t give two craps about constitutionality. It’s mental health that is the issue. Not right or left. Not guns. Mental health. Until that’s addressed issues will still arise no matter the variable. Even if you did take guns.

1

Djinnwrath t1_j5qe7wl wrote

You need to learn English better

0

crankyape1534 t1_j5qh9aw wrote

Lol even if I do, doesn’t change my point which you can’t refute. Mental illness is the issue. It’s damaged hurt angry people acting out, and yes guns can be used by them to hurt people, but it’s not the guns killing people it’s the damaged people killing people. You want to pin it on guns. It wont change that mental health in America is slipping and people will still find ways to act out or do violence.

2