• nac82@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s funny because an earlier bit of context that you have cut out from the 2nd discusses the needs of this militia to be well regulated.

    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.

      • Separating items in a list of three or more
      • Connecting two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
      • Setting apart non-restrictive relative clauses
      • nac82@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.

        The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.

        If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.

        See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?

        • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.

          The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.

          • nac82@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.

            There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership.

              No that isn’t clear at all.

              It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.

              It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.

              The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn’t how it all worked out.

    • uzi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Given that gun free zones make easy shooting victims, what can have government regulations will prevent people dedicated to commiting homicide?

      • nac82@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you take a cup of water out of a bucket, does it leave behind a cup shaped opening in the water?

      • nac82@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Sounds like we are in agreement that the amendment is able to be changed to be relevant to modern interpretations.

        • Throwaway@lemm.eeM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.

          The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s why I’ve always found this a nuanced discussion.

            I’ve always interpreted as the people have the right to keep military style weapons to form a militia. That’s based on the miller case.

            The 2nd amendment was never about hunting.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.

          Be careful with modern interpretations. I assume you are a liberal which means you’d hate heller. Heller is a modern view the 2nd amendment.

          • nac82@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            You mean, you have an idea in your head that you think should be enforced on everybody despite it not being democratically placed.

            The word for that is fascist. And it just so happens to be the right to deadly violence lmao.

            Irony is dead.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              8 months ago

              That makes little sense. Can you expand? Democratically placed sounds like you don’t get out government.

              We are a constitutional republic. Not everything is voted on. It’s what protects our rights. Otherwise things like gay marriage could be illegal by a vote or trans people could be voted out. With the constitution they are protected from the tyranny of the majority.

              • nac82@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                And none of that applies to thoughts living in your head. You want to enforce your beliefs on everybody without any government process.

                Those beliefs is in regards to your right to deadly violence.

                You are a violent fascist who uses linguistics on democracy and constitutional republic to dismiss the violence you are advocating.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  What are you rambling about? You are making no sense.

                  Can you be more clear what thoughts you are referencing ?

                  I outlined the government process.

                  And what violence am I advocating ? I have advocated for no violence.

                  • nac82@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    I recommend you read the thread if you are confused about the discussion.

                    We weren’t discussing a political process. We were discussing your headcannon of the 2nd amendment and how it aligns perfectly with the stance of a violent fascist.

          • nac82@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            be careful with modern interpretations

            Man, I can’t get over you flip-flopping right here.

            You literally chimed in to insist upon a modern interpretation, then immediately said nobody else should do so.

            Conservatives are inherently incapable of honest debate.