MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Monday, October 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 56.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby ejbrush » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:27 am

Just to be clear for you and Meade and anyone else here inclined to repeatedly clip just what is convenient from the Second Amendment

It is possible for someone to clip that phrase in the interest of irony or irreverent needling without wanting to make some deliberate ideological point. You know, to save typing.
Does your home have a brim? I think my nephews' house might be brimming with Lego; it might only be awash though.
ejbrush
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby wack wack » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:44 am

ejbrush wrote:
Just to be clear for you and Meade and anyone else here inclined to repeatedly clip just what is convenient from the Second Amendment

It is possible for someone to clip that phrase in the interest of irony or irreverent needling without wanting to make some deliberate ideological point. You know, to save typing.
Does your home have a brim? I think my nephews' house might be brimming with Lego; it might only be awash though.


Sure it's possible; certainly not common.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby jjoyce » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:05 pm

I should have said the house was lousy with guns.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:22 pm

wack wack wrote:Just to be clear for you and Meade and anyone else here inclined to repeatedly clip just what is convenient from the Second Amendment, as well as those who may be misinformed by such selective quoting, here is the entire 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.


I would point out that most people who insist that 2nd be taken as a whole, seem to miss the fact that the first half of the sentence doesn't actually grant or limit any rights, while the second half doesn't apply any limitations to the rights it grants. It takes a pretty twisted view of the English language to read the first part as anything other than a reason why the rights are being granted.

Unless of course you happen to have a 18th century understanding of what a militia is (which presumable the writers did).

At the time the Bill of Rights was passed, a well regulated militia was considered every able bodied free white male between the ages of 18 and 45 in a defined area. Membership wasn't really optional and some group training was expected. In fact the year after the Bill of Rights were ratified, they codified that definition into law and defined the training militia members were expected to attend and organization of militia companies. Militia Acts of 1792

So basically the Second Amendment grants everyone (who is free, white and male) the right to bear arms, because every person (who is free, white and male), is expected serve in the local militia in times of danger. Seeing as the Militia Act of 1903 pretty much killed the idea of regulated militias in favor of a far more organized and better trained National Guard, we're left with a sentence that gives an archaic justification for arming citizens who are no longer required to be armed as part of their civic duties.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby wack wack » Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:06 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:It takes a pretty twisted view of the English language to read the first part as anything other than a reason why the rights are being granted.


Yep.

Francis Di Domizio wrote:...we're left with a sentence that gives an archaic justification for arming citizens who are no longer required to be armed as part of their civic duties.


Yep.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby rabble » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:01 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:So basically the Second Amendment grants everyone (who is free, white and male) the right to bear arms, because every person (who is free, white and male), is expected serve in the local militia in times of danger.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, they left the term "well regulated militia" in there for the southern states, whose militias went on regular slave patrols and inspections to stave off slave rebellions.

As you say, it was not really a volunteer force. The second amendment advocates want the militia without the regulation part.

And more and more lately, to defend rights that have already been taken away.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6283
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:25 pm

rabble wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:So basically the Second Amendment grants everyone (who is free, white and male) the right to bear arms, because every person (who is free, white and male), is expected serve in the local militia in times of danger.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, they left the term "well regulated militia" in there for the southern states, whose militias went on regular slave patrols and inspections to stave off slave rebellions.

As you say, it was not really a volunteer force. The second amendment advocates want the militia without the regulation part.

And more and more lately, to defend rights that have already been taken away.


Do a little more research, "well regulated militias" was there for all states not just southern ones (though southern ones were indeed used in the manner you described). The US government pretty much
conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company


Of course the fact that Militias at the time were subject to and created by federal regulations tends to put lie to the idea that it was a way to protect against tyranny of the government.

That doesn't help much with the fact that the Second is still one of the most poorly written sentences in the constitution. Most of the Bill of rights have aged spectacularly. As our understanding of the term Militia has changed and need for every able bodied man to to take arms in an emergency has dwindled away the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" has lost most of it's original meaning.

On the other hand there is still the problem that even understanding that phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is still a fairly direct statement with no restrictions implied.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:49 pm

If the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was absolute (or nearly so), then why wasn't it included in the First Amendment, which starts out with "Congress shall make no law..."? And why the verbage about a well regulated militia and the state?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19980
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:04 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:Do a little more research, "well regulated militias" was there for all states not just southern ones (though southern ones were indeed used in the manner you described).


This was making the rounds last week. It's interesting, but I always take things like this with a grain of salt.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.


http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-th ... ve-slavery

None of us were there at the time and we'll never really know, but seeing as how legislation is written today to appease certain groups and people, I wouldn't be that surprised.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4926
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby jonnygothispen » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:20 pm

The House voted to place "militia" before the right to bear arms...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution
James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[90] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[91] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby wack wack » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:04 pm

So all that stuff I learned in school about the Second Amendment being related to the Third Amendment and a fear of a standing army was just BS?

Darn public school indoctrination.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:26 pm

wack wack wrote:So all that stuff I learned in school about the Second Amendment being related to the Third Amendment and a fear of a standing army was just BS?

Darn public school indoctrination.



I'm OK if you want to blame Henry, but they taught the same crap in Catholic school.

Hell it might even be true.
Stebben84 wrote:None of us were there at the time and we'll never really know
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby pjbogart » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:38 am

It seems that people argue about the Second Amendment so much that the most compelling argument just gets lost in the noise. No one, not even the most ardent supporters of gun rights, argues that there should be no restrictions on the possession of weaponry. We all seem to agree that it's reasonable to restrict the possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. I think we can also agree that placing landmines in your lawn, installing anti-aircraft guns on your roof or standing in line at McDonald's with a vest of live grenades should be restricted.

So, if we agree that some restrictions are legitimate, how do we ascertain the limits of those restrictions?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6169
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby wack wack » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:49 am

The Second Amendment is only fodder for constant debate and personal reinterpretation because it is completely anachronistic, as much so as the Third Amendment.

In the favored parlance of the right, it needs to be repealed and replaced to reflect the modern uses and concerns regarding firearms.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Crew of 4 invades house brimming with guns, steals them

Postby jman111 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:52 am

pjbogart wrote:So, if we agree that some restrictions are legitimate, how do we ascertain the limits of those restrictions?

It's like déjà vu all over again.

So, this is the NEW gun thread, right?
Lock the other one come Monday mornin'?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar