Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay

Originally Posted by Chris

The very problem is that the clause is routinely misquoted as you have done.

Its not mis-quoted at all, those are the exact words that form part of it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-2/

Originally Posted by Paul

Its not mis-quoted at all, those are the exact words that form part of it.
https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-2/

To quote only part of the sentence is to mis-quote it, if the missing part changes the sense of the part quoted - as is the case here.

The right to bear arms follows the assertion that a well-regulated militia is key to the security of the state and should be understood in that context. However, gradually, successive Supreme Court judgments have tended to view it in isolation and in line with their perception of their contemporary context. This approach is defended by criticising the alternative as “originalism”.

There are sound arguments for reinterpretation of a constitution for each new age but personally I’m sceptical whether it’s legitimate to do that via a panel of judges who are appointed for life and free to make rulings on the original text based on their political leanings. If a constitution is to be reinterpreted I think that should be done by direct political process over which the electorate has direct control. If the original meaning and intent of the right to bear arms no longer holds relevance in the 21st century then it should be debated and re-written, rather than leaving the 18th century text open to whatever meaning the current Supreme Court wishes to give it.

Originally Posted by Chris

To quote only part of the sentence is to mis-quote it.

No it isnt.

misquote
* a passage or remark quoted inaccurately.
* quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.

The bit I quoted was accurate.

Originally Posted by Paul

No it isnt.

misquote
* a passage or remark quoted inaccurately.
* quote (a person or a piece of written or spoken text) inaccurately.

The bit I quoted was accurate.

Yes it is.

If you quote part of a sentence so as to change the overall sense of the sentence, you have quoted inaccurately, as per that definition. The part of the sentence that you didn’t quote - the part that connects gun ownership to regulated militia and territorial defence - is important.

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes it is.

No, it isnt. You can say it as many times as you want, and still be wrong.
It not a misquote as its not inaccurate, so unless you can point out which of the word or words I quoted are inaccurate, I suggest you move on.

Originally Posted by Paul

No, it isnt. You can say it as many times as you want, and still be wrong.
It not a misquote as its not inaccurate, so unless you can point out which of the word or words I quoted are inaccurate, I suggest you move on.

I’ve pointed it out a number of times, but seeing as you asked, here it is again.

The full clause is “ 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”.

You quoted “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The second half of the sentence is conditional on the first half. In quoting only half the sentence you changed its meaning. You misquoted it.

You’re welcome.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Well its worded "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."


Has no relevance in todays world and 200 years out of date.

Apparently it's still relevant to some even today.

Originally Posted by Chris

I’ve pointed it out a number of times, but seeing as you asked, here it is again.

The full clause is “ 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”.

You quoted “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The second half of the sentence is conditional on the first half. In quoting only half the sentence you changed its meaning. You misquoted it.

You’re welcome.

Yes, but let’s play Devils Advocate here and definitely say millions of Americans interpret the 2nd Amendment as just saying, the same, that it means, the right to bear arms.

That said, there have been 2 recent Supreme Court cases involving the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, while the court overturned blanket bans on handgun ownership in homes, in Chicago and Washington DC, the highest court of the land did prescribe limitations…

” the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

[1andrew1]

I expect Piers Morgan will be rattling a few people in the States with his views on firearms on his forthcoming Fox TV weeknight show and in his New York Times column.

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes, but let’s play Devils Advocate here and definitely say millions of Americans interpret the 2nd Amendment as just saying, the same, that it means, the right to bear arms.

That said, there have been 2 recent Supreme Court cases involving the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, while the court overturned blanket bans on handgun ownership in homes, in Chicago and Washington DC, the highest court of the land did prescribe limitations…

” the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’”

Indeed … and this is where it gets really tricky, because the precise regulation of handguns is carried out at state level, with the Supreme Court stepping in only when asked to. That recent judgment does in some way at least acknowledge that the right is conditional. Given that the condition, as stated in the constitution, is the need for a well regulated militia, the court must presumably have had that in mind. The question is, exactly how does the modern Supreme Court construe the need for a well regulated militia? Clearly the keeping of a gun at home is not directly connected to organised territorial defence because the States now all have their own uniformed National Guard. I can only imagine that they see the possession of guns in the hands of citizens as some sort of theoretical last line of defence. That still makes a lot of American gun culture perplexing to say the least.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

That still makes a lot of American gun culture perplexing to say the least.

A lot of this must surely be driven by the long-term lobbying in the US by the gun industry making US gun culture the accepted norm and any reforms being portrayed as being anti-American.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I expect Piers Morgan will be rattling a few people in the States with his views on firearms on his forthcoming Fox TV weeknight show and in his New York Times column.

He has done.


Many NRA nutters wanted him deported, but it was pointed out that A) he is married to an American, B) He has dual citizenship, C) he's exercising his 1st amendment rights.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

He has done.


Many NRA nutters wanted him deported, but it was pointed out that A) he is married to an American, B) He has dual citizenship, C) he's exercising his 1st amendment rights.

Yup.
His new talkTV and Fox show starts in the Summer I believe so doubtless he'll be stirring up a bit of controversy then. His geographical location won't matter.

Originally Posted by Chris

I’ve pointed it out a number of times, but seeing as you asked, here it is again.

The full clause is “ 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”.

You quoted “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The second half of the sentence is conditional on the first half. In quoting only half the sentence you changed its meaning. You misquoted it.

And as I have pointed out, what I quoted is not incorrect.
I have just quoted part of your post, that does not make it a misquote.
A partial quote is not a misquote, to be a misquote it would have to be inaccurate
[ any further argument about this will be removed, its going nowhere, and way off topic ].


As far as the "meaning" of the whole 2nd amendment goes, thats been debated for years (even centuries) and will no doubt continue to be.
The only people who know for sure died a very long time ago. However, the views of the US supreme court have been made clear more recently.