05-21-2017, 05:45 PM
It's not a values-lock question. We all share the value of safety. The disagreement is over the means. In my opinion, guns endanger safety, not protect it. Guns destroy life; that is their purpose. Those who disagree claim that guns are a means of self defense.
You call it the "Jim Crow interpretation" of the 2nd amendment, that says that the 2nd confers the right to bear arms on the militia. I call the Scalia ruling the "right-wing extremist third-turning-era interpretation" of it. The right-wing movement that currently rules our country and took power in 1980 is the most extreme faction in our country in history, save perhaps for the Dixie hotheads of the mid-19th century.
I understand your analogy about the free speech amendment. Of course, it's just an example; it's not in the constitution. The 2nd is the only amendment, I believe, in the US constitution that has such a clause. So, it's significant.
I understand why the late 20th century 3T right-wing interpretation focuses on the 2nd clause. I would interpret it this way: since the militia refers to all men, and all men were whom the constitution applied to in those days, and only white men at that, the "people" and the "militia" were effectively the same thing, originally. So the right of the people to bear arms is subject to the regulations of a militia. Even the extremist right-wing Heller ruling allowed for gun control, perhaps partly for this reason.
You call it the "Jim Crow interpretation" of the 2nd amendment, that says that the 2nd confers the right to bear arms on the militia. I call the Scalia ruling the "right-wing extremist third-turning-era interpretation" of it. The right-wing movement that currently rules our country and took power in 1980 is the most extreme faction in our country in history, save perhaps for the Dixie hotheads of the mid-19th century.
I understand your analogy about the free speech amendment. Of course, it's just an example; it's not in the constitution. The 2nd is the only amendment, I believe, in the US constitution that has such a clause. So, it's significant.
I understand why the late 20th century 3T right-wing interpretation focuses on the 2nd clause. I would interpret it this way: since the militia refers to all men, and all men were whom the constitution applied to in those days, and only white men at that, the "people" and the "militia" were effectively the same thing, originally. So the right of the people to bear arms is subject to the regulations of a militia. Even the extremist right-wing Heller ruling allowed for gun control, perhaps partly for this reason.