What is this statement saying?

[John Dule]

Think of this as a reading comprehension question. Yes, there is a right and a wrong answer. Yes, if you chose the wrong answer on, say, a test, you'd lose a point. No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

[John Dule]

Dule, the people who wrote that clearly never contemplated how the methane emissions of the dairy industrial complex would endanger society due to global warming. Clearly only dairy breeds existing two centuries ago are protected and automatic soft-serve ice cream machines can be banned.

Clever thinking. However, because this is a common core curriculum, you are not allowed to be creative with your answer. You're going to have to retake 7th grade.

[John Dule]

In this case, a glass of milk= A well regulated militia, balanced breakfast= security of a free state, Keep and own cows= Keep and own arms. The second amendment states: “ 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“. The second amendment essentially states that “A regulated militia” is essential for the “security of a free state”, and due to that fact the “right to bear arms” should not be infringed upon, with “security of a free state” being offered as one of potential many reasons.

It would be the second answer I assume?

Very good. A+, in fact! And thank you for demonstrating how you arrived at that answer for the class.

[John Dule]

Yes, Dule, a plain reading of the Second Amendment does have it mean what the libertarian right says it means. You have to obsess over the first comma to get it to mean something else.

A better question is whether the Constitution should be amended again to reflect the emerging consensus (among the general public, not among politicians and political junkies) in favor of stricter gun laws, but, understandably, nobody wants to have that conversation because going back and amending the Bill of Rights would set such a toxic precedent.

Huh, I didn't notice that this thread had gotten so much activity since I last checked it. In any case, I appreciate the gun control advocates who concede the actual meaning of the Second Amendment while still arguing that it should be changed. In fact, I would be open to that course of action (if it were undertaken with the intention of creating the broadest possible consensus imaginable). Regardless though, this does not change the fact that the people who attempt to change the literal meaning of the text are disingenuous hacks who are imposing their ideology on codified law.

[John Dule]

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

Uh-oh. Sounds like someone is getting an F on this assignment!

[John Dule]

the people who attempt to change the literal meaning of the text are disingenuous hacks who are imposing their ideology on codified law.

The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

It is extremely dangerous to stray too far from the literal meaning of the text, and if you do, you had better have some damn concrete evidence that your interpretation better embodies the intent of the law in question.

[John Dule]

The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

It is extremely dangerous to stray too far from the literal meaning of the text, and if you do, you had better have some damn concrete evidence that your interpretation better embodies the intent of the law in question.

Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

No-- but then again, I don't have any evidence as to why cows should be synonymous with guns either.

[John Dule]

Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

No-- but then again, I don't have any evidence as to why cows should be synonymous with guns either.

All I am observing here is that your underlying claim — that the Second Amendment is an unambiguous statement that allows for only your interpretation to prevail — relies on your particular subjective definition of each term and how they function together. There is no reason to presume that your interpretation of the language is correct. The definition of the word "bear", which you see as conferring an individual right to carry firearms, is one of many examples where you are relying on your interpretation to foreclose other readings of the text.

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

[John Dule]

Then what is preventing us from "reinterpreting" every single word to mean a completely different thing?

A city actually has the constitutional power to restrict the possession of guns, though not the ownership of them. There is significant evidence that, in the time the Constitution was written, town folk did not keep their guns in their homes, but instead in a centralized arsenal, literally for the purpose of a city militia. So a right to bear arms, if taken not from textualism but from originalism, a philosophy based in context of that specific time, at least cities have the constitutional ability to so centralize weapons for the purpose of a city militia.

It’s unlikely any typical originalist would reach that conclusion, given the usual conservative bias, but it’s an example of the reason why libertarians have historically been a bit hesitant to support originalism. And most other judicial philosophies lack the emphasis on context to reach that conclusion.

I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.

[John Dule]

I've actually heard this argument before, but I was under the impression that it only applied to the "bear" portion of the amendment. "Keep" still implies one's ability to have the firearms in one's own house.

That’s a textualist commentary on an originalist idea. 

The central point is that the individual’s ability to bear arms is contingent upon it being for the force of a well regulated militia, such as one with a central armory. This particularly makes sense when we remember the Patriots largely organized around city militia and armories, which the British government sought to reduce to an individual bearing arms.

The founders deliberately chose wording that unambiguously states that the ownership of arms is not contingent upon militia membership. I find it hard to believe that originalist or textualist arguments could be made otherwise.

I love how people always forget the second and third words of the second amendment. Can people bear firearms? Sure. If yes, should they be regulated? Abso-f**kin'-lutely.

Also, for the record, you cannot kill people with a cow. Well, unless you're really good at domestication.

The second and third words of the amendment refer to the militia, not to firearms. This thread is not about what you think the law "should" say; rather, it is about the actual meaning of the text. Your extension of the cow analogy is thus irrelevant.

[John Dule]

Then that means that it's the complete and total right of the government to take the arms away from anyone who isn't a member of a militia.

Not even close. Please read the statement again, this time paying close attention to detail.