Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

Just adding a few points to my prior note.

(05-18-2017, 04:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Justification phrase:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

Implementation phrase:  “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I have several questions I like to ask of the meaning of the text.

1. How important did the founding fathers consider the militia?
   
2. It is the right of who to keep and bear arms?
   
3. Can this right be infringed, limited in any way?
   

To me, the answer to those questions seem so obvious that I seldom provide answers.  Thing is, for some, reading comprehension is harder that parroting one's values.  Some folks values are so absolutely locked in that they lose their ability to read.  To sate the obvious...

1. The founders considered the militia necessary.
   
2. It is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
   
3. The right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed.
   

The New Yorker article claims the Second Amendment is ungrammatical and obscure.  It does not seem so to me.  It would only seem ungrammatical and obscure if one is value locked into an incorrect interpretation of what the authors intended to convey.  Does anyone wish to claim the above three answers are not clearly obvious from the text?  If so, even if you are warned that you are under blatant values lock, can you still deny that the standard model meaning of the text is correct?

One example of a justification phrase preceding a right looks almost too plausible.  It's not directly related to gun policy, but it shows the dangers of the Jim Crow style of interpreting justification phrases.

(05-18-2017, 04:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: As publishers require freedom of the press to protect democracy, everybody has freedom of the press.  Does this imply the government can censor the writings of non-publishers?  If the government decides freedom of the press for publishers no longer protects democracy, does the right go away?

These days, false news is becoming an issue.  I'm not sure the press hasn't spun more or out and out lied more in the past, but false news is becoming news in and of itself.

Is it possible that the ability to spew false news has become a danger to democracy?  Under Justice Holmes' principle that if you are doing harm, a right does not protect you, even without using the Jim Crow method of interpretation, is it arguable that freedom of the press is not absolute and should be not absolute?

Thus far, the notion that political false news remains free speech, no matter that it does harm, seems to be holding up.  It just seems to me that protecting political free speech is held with a higher regard than Justice Holmes's principle that rights do not protect those who cause harm.

Which is likely a good thing.  I certainly don't trust the government to institute a policy of editing false news.  I doubt very much they could censor without spin.  They would go after false new that hurts them while letting favorable false news stand.