• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    A well stocked library, being necessary and proper for the literacy of a nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

    That wouldn’t limit the ownership of books to just librarians or people with library cards, it clearly applies to all people.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      What if libraries stopped existing because they were completely replaced by something else? Militias stopped existing when we created a standing army. Or, if you want to be charitable, they’ve evolved into “National Guard” who are often armed. They are also well-regulated, as the amendment requires.

      Also, this analogy is shit, you can’t take someone’s life in a split second, without a thought, with a fucking book. Give me a break.

    • Froyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The American/English language is awesome. We’ve got these great rules with sentence structure and grammar that makes things super easy once you learn the tricks.

      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.

      Little English trick for you. Remove the words between the commas and see if the sentence makes sense.
      “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” - Looks pretty good.
      “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” - Still looks good and justifies the reason.
      “A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Still looking good and provides context as to WHO the Militia is.

      We put it all together and get
      A well regulated Militia (which is needed for security) (made up of people with guns) is a right granted to the State.

      If we add the missing comma to your initial statement before the word ‘shall’.
      Yes, the way your statement is written it would contain books to libraries and would not EXPLICITY provide such protections (book ownership) to individuals. It does not limit individuals, but it does not grant them special rights either.

      If “the founders” had wanted everyone to be able to buy a gun they would not have included the word Militia. They’re authorizing States the rights to form their own National Guard. Keep in mind, they are NOT saying the average person cannot have a gun. It is my belief that during these times of ‘unrest’ that they wanted at least some form of local army to defend against invasion. Folks that get training on weapon use and military tactics.

      Also some food for thought, nowhere in the 2A or Constitution is the word “ammunition”. So if the government so wished, they could simply make possession of primers illegal.

      Read your statement again and now it makes sense why you think what you think. It’s the comma you either left off intentionally or conveniently. Commas matter.

      Edit: The 2A does not GRANT or DIMINISH an individuals’ right to arms as it never addresses the subject. It only GRANTS the right to those members of the Militia.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        A well regulated militia shall not be infringed sounds pretty meaningless to me. Can a well regulated militia take my car since they can’t be infringed? Can they openly kill anyone not in the militia? Can you not get speeding tickets if you join a militia? Adding being necessary to the security of a free state, does not clarify anything.

        The actual subject in the sentence is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If the Founders wanted it to be only members of a militia, they could have said members, militias, their, or almost anything other than the people.

        • Froyn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Just because you do not comprehend the statement, does not make it untrue.

          The SUBJECT of that statement is “Militia”. The statement self-justifies, then defines, then acts upon it.

          Your question response goes on to further expose your misunderstanding. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an attack on you. If there’s any blame to your misunderstanding, it lies in the school system.

          The Second Amendment grants members of the Militia, the right to keep their guns in their home. AS noted by another commenter, that would be the National Guard in today’s terms. In Founders terms, it was minutemen.

          All the 2A does is exempt Militia members from State or Federal Laws if those laws prohibit gun possession. It also exempts them if they require the discharge of that weapon in duty of preserving the Free State. This means if the Chinese military drops a paratrooper over a National Guardsman’s home, they are exempt from prosecution for shooting at them.

          Here’s the best part. If we repealed the second amendment, nothing would change. It never granted an individual rights to begin with so revoking it would not take those rights away.

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        As ass backwards as your understanding of sentence structure is and as intentionally obtuse an interpretation of the words “the people” as “the militia” instead of as “the people” like every other use of those words in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t matter even if we agree with your assertion

        The 2A does not GRANT or DIMINISH an individuals’ right to arms as it never addresses the subject. It only GRANTS the right to those members of the Militia.

        10 USC: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        Basically you are saying disarm only women and the elderly. That seems a little discriminatory, but you do you. Broadly speaking here, everyone is part of the militia. The militia is the citizens of the country. And if you want to argue that this doesn’t mean the people get to keep their arms when not actively participating in militia action like everyone seems to do when this is pointed out, please see the relevant legislation from the same time period as the 2nd Amendment.

        Second Militia Act of 1792: How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

        Clear intention that every citizen should arm themselves with military hardware, ammunition, and know how to use it. You didn’t use bayonets for hunting, this was “modern military hardware” for the day. This was not authorization to be allowed to arm militias. The US was not even allowed to have a standing army, only a permanent navy was allowed, the armed citizenry was the army as needed. And all this is moot because the premise of the 2nd being only for militia members is, again, faulty.