Replies

Hello again to you both. Once again I must apologise for my tardiness in responding to your posts from several days ago. This thread is now cold and everyone has moved on, but in light of my initial emphatic disagreements with your comments and my promise to you I owed you a more coherent and complete answer than just checking in a dashing something off. I had intended to get back to you the next day, but it just didn't work out that way. Again, I hope you will accept my apologies. This experience has been a fresh reminder of why I lurked here for five years before I ever posted anything - credible participation requires the investment of sufficient time, and it's not always easy to do.

First: Teacher317

Let's begin with Teacher's initial post which I challenged:

True, but the Second Amendment talks about the regulation of the militia, not of arms.

To which I replied: "This assertion is simply, flatly untrue."

Teacher, I responded so forcefully because I thought (mistakenly, as your subsequent posts showed) that you were using the term "regulated" in the same dishonestly incorrect sense that "collective-rights" advocates have used it, and that you therefore believed that the 2nd Amendment authorized the federal government to control (regulate - in the modern sense of 'government regulations') the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Your subsequent posts on this thread indicated clearly, however, that was not the case, and that you understood fully that the proper, historically accurate 18th Century meaning of the term "well-regulated" was simply "set-up or configured and functioning properly". For example, a well-regulated engine is one which is properly tuned and running smoothly, a well-regulated clock is one which is properly adjusted and keeps the correct time, and a well-regulated militia is one whose members are properly armed, supplied and proficient in the skills necessary to be effective.

Thus, once my misunderstanding of your meaning was corrected, it was clear you and I were in agreement. I apologise for my failure at first to clearly get your meaning and my rather forceful response. I tend to be more zealous and strident in my defense of the 2nd Amendment than I do in most other discussions because I recognize that without it, those others become moot.

One final caveat regarding the imprecise use of language bears mentioning. When you said above "True, but the Second Amendment talks about the regulation of the militia, not of arms.", that statement is dangerously unclear. As you yourself acknowledge, a "well-regulated militia" does not mean the same thing as "regulating" (controlling, restricting, limiting, etc. in the modern sense) the militia". I know what you mean and you know what you mean, but the transposition of those terms provides an opportunity for distortion and deception to those who argue for the "collective-rights" interpretations of the 2nd.

The only place in the Constitution which deals with the "regulation" (in the modern sense) of the militia is found in Article I, Section 8, where the Legislative branch is empowered:

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The term "well-regulated" in the subordinate clause of the 2nd Amendment is an adjective, not an adverb - it merely describes the militia, it does not control (regulate) anything. A more precise, and much safer and resistant to distortion way to say what you said would be that the 2nd Amendment "mentions" (talks about) the militia, but the "subject" of the 2nd Amendment is the RIGHT of individual people to keep and bear arms. The subject clause is dominant.

Second: Mia T

Mia, I have followed your posts for years, and I appreciate the tremendous time and effort you put into them, and the interesting and useful information you provide. Thanks for all your hard work.

For this thread, the issue where we differ is found in your assertion:

My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time). Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today.

Once more, during my absence from the thread other posters, including Teacher317 stepped forward and gave you several explanations of just how timely and relevant to todays world the 2nd Amendment remains, and how guns in the hands of private citizens can still be a potent factor in maintaining our freedom. Just remember, it isn't necessary to defeat a tyrant's tanks and planes if you can take out the tyrant himself with a single bullet. If it were not so, history's tyrants, both past and prospective, would not be so desperately determined to disarm their citizens.

One final note re: P.S. I think you mean 'unsound,' (not 'invalid'). --Mia T

Yes, 'unsound' would be more correct. Thanks for the alert catch! This response was to our exchange of comments:

Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'

If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.--Mia T

You are... trying to reason from false premises, and thus your entire argument... [is] invalid.--tarheelswamprat

With regards to the specific assertion at issue: "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'.", there are actually two logic errors in this statement.

First, the premise that "Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today" is false. They may or may not be 'sufficient', but that has not been established as fact. In logic terms, it has not been proven.

Secondly, even if we were to grant, for purposes of illustration, that the premise is true (been proven), the stated conclusion that "And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate'." simply does not follow from the premise. You could just as easily argue that "Since guns aren't sufficient or effective today, they're not a threat and there's no need to regulate them." Both arguments represent a logical fallacy called a "non sequitur" (the conclusion does not follow from the premise).

The argument that time and technology negate the 2nd Amendment is no more sound than the argument that they negate the First, e.g. "the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned radio, TV or the internet, so the First Amendment applies only to printed media". In fact, none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights provide for any so-called "regulation" by government. They are ALL prohibitions and limitations on the powers of government. A person either understands and accepts this, or they don't. It's primarily a question of philosophy and principle, not logic.

Thank you both for your thoughtful posts, both here and in other threads, and thanks again for your forbearance of my tardiness in completing my responses to you. It's pretty obvious the "real world" is telling me it's time to take a break from FR. /g