The Second Amendment raises an important question.

[Coyotl]

[msongs]

1. nice try but most gun users & killers are not psychopaths - most gun toting killers are sane nt

[Skidmore]

2. Apparently many gun owners are content to

allow guns to be readily available to those who are.

[Zoeisright]

3. And thanks for proving the anti-gun point.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. but the intent is clear

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Perhaps not "psychopaths", who by clinical definition

can't distinguish between right and wrong. More likely "sociopaths", who know the difference but just don't give a f*ck.

[laundry_queen]

39. actually they can

you're thinking of people who are psychotic. A psychopath is exactly like a sociopath - some experts pretty much use the terms interchangeably, and both usually have traits that can be identified as AsPD (anti-social personality disorder). Some think it's a continuum. Both know exactly right from wrong, but don't care and do anything they can to further their own self-interest without regard for others. Not all are criminals or murderers. Most, however, cause chaos in their own personal circles. They are master manipulators. (I was married to one.)

Someone who is psychotic has totally lost touch with reality and may or may not be able to distinguish right from wrong.

[Surya Gayatri]

43. Point taken--you're right. The sociopathy/psychopathy

scale is always open to assesment by the practitioner. And the psychotics don't know good from bad, up from down.

That being said, just how "exactly" psychopaths know right from wrong, and just how much that sense of moral discernment may be skewed by their intense egotism, is a point of debate.

'Chaos through manipulation' just about sums it up--I've been robbed and worse by a couple of them I allowed close to me.

[Major Nikon]

9. The worst of them quite commonly are psychopaths who aren't insane

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html

[Bonhomme Richard]

15. Until they are not. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. You completely missed the point as well as what the 2nd Amendment actually says nt

[jody]

5. Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

Second Amendment is not about militia but each individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[RoccoR5955]

6. I call BS

The second amendment is ALL about a militia, and mentions not a damn thing about self defense.

[jody]

7. Please read PA(1776) & VT(1777) constitutions and learn about the right to defend self and property.

A little learning just might cure you or not.

[JoePhilly]

10. You might want to learn the structure of the English language.

The 2nd Amendment says this ...

"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."

As worded, the subject of this statement is "a well regulated Militia" and everything else supports that. The people keeping and bearing arms do so in service to the well regulated militia.

Side note: State constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution.

[jody]

11. Apparently you haven't read the Heller opinion. State constitutions written before our Constitutions

help clarify and understand the nature of rights that preexist our Constitution and do not depend upon words on paper.

[JoePhilly]

13. So do many other writings of the founders.

You cherry picked 2 that support your position. You are free to do so.

The same thing happens when some debate topics like the separation between church and state.

While you cherry pick, I simply used the standard rules of the language. After all, if you want to understand what the Founders intended, you might want to understand how the language was used.

Also ... you pick the Heller decision ... an opinion written by what most of us see as a right wing court. Do we not think they would cherry pick their precedents?

Apparently, you accept that right wing court's view.

I don't.

[jody]

19. I picked them because they were the first states to declare rights and they were written before our

Constitution.

Heller's opinion and dissent both used the PA and VT constitutions and the dissent said

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state," 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that "the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed," id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed "hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State." Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment's preamble. It confirms that the Framers' single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee "to keep and bear arms" was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I cherry pick Hamilton in Federalist 29

Defending the second before ratification. Funny thing, he speaks of...drum roll...Militias...not individuals. Why is that Jody? And you know what...the Heller decision was a mistake. They make mistakes from time to time, ask Justice Tawney about that.

Face it, we are actually at a cultural tipping point.

[JoePhilly]

55. Nice add ... the founders were not in agreement on all things.

And if you pick the right sources you can make almost any argument you want in part because the founders themselves were having many of the same arguments.

They were not of one mind. They crafted a compromise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Yup.

[X_Digger]

57. Please quote the section of FP 29 that says what you think it does.

It is a treatise on the control of the militia, but it never addresses the right.

Hamilton was for strong federal control of the militia, as opposed to the anti-federalists, who saw more value in keeping it decentralized.

Which is neither here nor there in regards to the scope of the right protected by the second amendment.

[Igel]

18. No, it's not.

"A well regulated militia" is the subject of an absolutive clause, but not the subject of the main clause. They used to be a bit more common in English, but much of their frequency was probably due to having similar kinds of constructions in Latin and Greek (which the founding fathers knew).

Depending on the aspect of the clause, they might establish a background or circumstance or they might give a rationale. It might be the logical foundation for it; it might be an example. It varies.

"The fire being out of control, Jake decided that running from the house was the best move."

"The battle having been lost and his best units destroyed, the general called his superiors to warn them of the imminent collapse of the front line."

It's unreasonable to argue that in these "the fire" and "the battle" are the subjects of the main clause, and the other possible subjects are just parentheticals. "The fire" makes a bad subject for "decided" and "the battle" is very unlikely to make many calls.

Both absolutive clauses are usually begun with something like "since" or "because". The problem is that both of those words, as well as the other ways of replacing absolutive clauses in English, are less ambiguous.


We still have something like absolutive clauses in common use, but we now require that the subject be null and coreferential with the subject of the tensed clause: "Hearing his child's screams, Pete stopped working on his novel and ran to the location of the voice."

[JoePhilly]

34. So now, please reframe the 2nd Amendment to fit your model.

Lower in this thread one respondant noted that the reason for the well regulated Militia was for the "security of the state". If so, even personal ownership of weapons is in service to THAT goal. Not personal defense. But defense of the state. Which again, suggests a primacy for the Militia.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Hamilton will agree with you in Federalist 29

Used to defend the second before ratification.

[sanatanadharma]

30. Thank you for rationality...

"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."

2nd Amendment says nothing about personal defense, its all about the "state" which is society

[immoderate]

36. The subject is "the right of the people..."

Just grammatically speaking, that's it. The "Militia" clause is a gerund, and would not be able to stand alone. It's validity will not be tested unless there is some unrest within the population. Like if the democracy fails.

--imm

[JoePhilly]

37. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is in support of the well regulated Militia, so

as to protect the security of the State.

Individuals can only protect the security of the State, within the framework of the well regulated Militia.

Unless you think a single individual can protect the security of the state on their own.

[RoccoR5955]

63. Exactly!

The second clause supports the first one. That's the way we write in the English Language. At least the way they wrote in the 18th Century.

[RoccoR5955]

62. Where did you learn the English language

The militia clause can stand on its own. Militias in the beginning of our country were because they didn't want a standing army.

[immoderate]

65. The militia clause is a gerund clause. Technically, there is no verb.

Sure it can stand on its own, but that wouldn't be English.

--imm

[Surya Gayatri]

12. The dates (1776 and 1777) being the pertinent

points in the discussion. The front-loading, one-shot musket wasn't generally feared as a weapon of mass destruction.

Most colonials probably didn't have heavy cannon caissons in their farmyards, with less killing power than today's handheld semi-automatics.

[jody]

24. Come on, that's been ridiculed so many times it's no longer funny. nt

[Surya Gayatri]

35. Not by any of the mentally stable, socially responsible people I know...

[jody]

40. Apparently I'm the only one of those you've met and you won't listen to me.

[Surya Gayatri]

45. Don't flatter yourself...and I won't either.

[JoePhilly]

14. You should also notice it makes no mention of the "purchase" of said weapons.

You can "keep and bear" them, but the sale and purchase is not mentioned.

So let's assume that you can keep and bear any weapon you can make yourself. But there a laws which regulate the sale and purchase of such items via the Commerce Clause.

[jody]

16. And "sale and purchase is not mentioned" for tools to exercise the other rights. What BS.

[JoePhilly]

17. Not really ... you've heard of the right to free speech, yes?

Is the internet free? No. But if its not free, my free speech has been blocked.

Can I be arrested for how I use my right to free speech over the internet? Yes.

You can have any weapon you want. But you have to meet certain requirements to sell or purchase them.

Not really all that different.

[jody]

20. So you support someone possessing any firearm they construct? nt

[JoePhilly]

21. I think that is closer to what the founders intended.

Naturally, they never imagined nuclear weapons.

Did you know that recently, Scalia suggested that "arms" might include any weapon that you could carry? Which would allow one to own tactical nuclear weapons. He did not say he supported it, but he floated the idea.

As for what I support, I've described in some detail what I support.

I did so in another DU thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2009575

[jody]

23. 3D printing really opens up the options for those who want to make their own. nt

[JoePhilly]

27. At least when you gave up, you did so in an obvious manner.

[jody]

29. LOL have a blissful evening. nt

[JoePhilly]

33. You didn't need to quit twice.

[neverforget]

38. Ha!

[intaglio]

25. Well I do - but they have to test fire it personally

Essentially you lack knowledge of subordinate clauses, the element of the Second that has never been tested in court, and support the enabling of mass murder instead of finding a way to reduce the chances of such things happening.

BTW arming everyone will still result in innocent deaths; many of people that the shooter just thought was threatening them, remember Trayvon Martin?

[intaglio]

66. In other words you have no reply except to imply I am a drug addict

What a way to argue! Really, you enablers of mass murder, you anti-life gun supporters should try thinking of children and victims instead of your own personal pleasures.

[jody]

67. I found your post difficult to follow. You say "Essentially you lack knowledge of subordinate

clauses, the element of the Second that has never been tested in court" when in fact it was tested in Heller.

I assumed someone who posted about the Second Amendment would be vaguely familiar with that SCOTUS decision but in case you haven't read it, go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Be sure and read both opinion and dissents because both support the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, one explicitly as an enumerated right and the other implicitly as an unenumerated right.

[intaglio]

68. No Heller did NOT test the priority of the clauses

It tested only the most limited area of 2.

This has been posted about at length on DU in the past 3 days.

Now how about some admission that the only reason for owning a Bushmaster is the jollies it gives the owner.

[jody]

69. We disagree. Please explain why the opinion and dissent discussions of the clauses do not

satisfy your demand for a test of priority.

[jody]

70. intaglio please explain how "Heller did NOT test the priority of the clauses".

Do you have any personal contribution that would enhance the amici curiae accepted by SCOTUS FOR PROFESSORS OF LINGUISTICS AND ENGLISH DENNIS E. BARON, Ph.D., RICHARD W. BAILEY, Ph.D. AND JEFFREY P. KAPLAN, Ph.D.?
See http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacProfessorsOfLinguistics.pdf

[JoePhilly]

31. I think you got this right ... those who don't want to find a solution prefer to

shrug and throw their hands up as if there is nothing that can be done to solve the problem.

Which is ironic, since many who own guns but are against ANY requirements for doing so, think they are solving a problem.

[RoccoR5955]

64. No, because if you read it correctly

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


CONGRESS... The Internet is now privately owned, and can have speech regulated by your ISP, because your ISP is NOT Congress!

[sanatanadharma]

32. NO NO NO...its about the security of the state, not personal defense

"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."

2nd Amendment says nothing about personal defense, its all about the "state" which is society

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. C: None of the above. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. In the 18th century the militia also served in constabulary roles

Today's equivalent, police.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Yeahs it you asked

I answered your question. Militia were cops, not very good cops, not even fair cops.

So I just answered your question.

As to the rest...there is a lot that we need to change as a culture.

One immediate change, stop tolerating divorced from reality NRA talking points.

Less immediate, we need to deal with mental health and the violence we see around us. A homeless person, who is obviously mentally ill, don't belong in the streets.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. What do you mean backwards

I guess we should not deal with mental health then...



Of course we must keep as we are..and wait for the next shooting

You get a question answered and you react that way...have an excellent day


Bye.

[JoePhilly]

49. A well regulated Militia says nothing about how we care for the mentally ill.

You are conflating different parts of the issue.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about the mentally ill or how they are treated.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. Joe. never mind. I am self-deleting. You guys have fun. I am outta this thread.

[JoePhilly]

53. I'm not sure we are having fun ... but you should as always decide where you want to debate

such topics.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

54. looks to me like you guys are having a whale of a feel good time.

[rhett o rick]

46. In a day and age where the Constitution has been trampled by the Bush Admin

and with no attempt at repair by the Pres Obama admin, some are worried about the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Fix the Patriot Act, FICA, and indefinite detention, then I will listen to arguments why we shouldnt interpret the 2nd Amendment to not make personal ownership of assault weapons a right.

[bongbong]

56. Best summary of the 2nd Amendment

This goes into detail about how the reich-wing has misread the 2nd Amendment, and why Heller is such a wrong decison.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Thanks

Into my notes it goes.

[Buns_of_Fire]

71. Interestingly enough, every time someone speaks in front of an NRA backdrop these days,

I've noticed that it leaves off that troubling first part altogether and jumps right into "...the right of the people..."

Any tense of the verb "to regulate" is not to be used in their presence.

[chirurgdecreier]

60. Guns kill people, not people...to take away the guns!!!

"Psychopath" is a forensic term. It describes one who has behaved insanely-- PAST TENSE, often with many innocents dea! Usually insane behavior will be disregarded on basis of: "mind my own business." But when 20 First Graders and 6 adults are killed, it is a forensic term that makes us all weep and enraged.

The real issue is who is capable of such an act? The key term is "anomie." It means total lack of human feeling generated for con-specifics due to disorders in the social circuits of the brain. We assume that sometime before the act that got one labeled as a "psychotic," the individual slipped into the world of insanity. Why? Because-- WE ASSUME-- only someone "deranged psychotic" could do such a thing....such a SENSELESS thing!

But think about it; if we itch, we scratch. If we scratch without an itch, then there's something wrong with us? Really?

Chronic pain is pain felt long after the original pain may be gone. So one still feels pain but the PAINFUL stimulus is gone. Does that mean that the sufferer is insane, or does it mean that the brain is rarely a proper conscious decision making computer because it rarely simulates reality?

Autistics get easily frustrated for exactly that reason: their brains fail to adequately simulate reality to their satisfaction. But, as a rule, they are said to turn their frustration on themselves. Self-injuries make that point vividly enough. Yet, we also see them taking it out on objects. However, we rarely see them taking it out on others. But we can't forget that they do take it out on THINGS. Rage, afterall, is rage!

The critical point is that Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, like Lanza, the shooter of of Sandy Point, was diagnosed as suffering from Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism. Now, one can say, people are not things so the propensity to damage things in a state of utter frustration, not so abnormal. Well enough, except that research has shown that autistics tend so see people as THINGS because they lack animational empathy and suffer from anomie.

http://autism.yale.edu/initial-topics/4

There is no "scientific" proof that autistics, in their things-state attribution to people are prone to take out their unusually high states of frustration on others. So, it has been proposed that Cho and Lanza were psychotics suffering from "anti-social disorder syndrome," a later-in-life PSYCHOTIC disorder which distinguishes from Hepsberger's, a DEVELOPMENTAL disorder. However, the latter is a forensic diagnosis as it is identified by behavior that had been engaged in and not by a pre-existing neural disorder. Yet, BOTH begin with a total lack of HUMANE FEELING towards con-specifics (of your own kind) and so someone with Hepsberger's, like Cho or Lanza, may well have manifested their young male high hormonal state of aggression towards THINGS, remembering that to autistics people and things are BOTH: THINGS! It is then, when their rage of frustration is directed at other humans as things, that we label them as psychotics rather than autistics. However, could their autistic perspective of others as things have been PERMISSIVE enough to move them to the state of MASS KILLERS...in THEIR minds, just breaking "THINGS"?

We may never know the answer. But, should the answer turn out to be "YES," it should be kept in mind that 1 in 10 births are assumed to be AUTISTIC, that meaning that in their anomie they see PEOPLE as THINGS. That's a lot of potential shooters! But we can't prejudge autistics as was done with "witch trials" several centuries ago. Rather, with so many POTENTIAL mass murders-- potentially (presumably??) able to cross from "autistic" to "psychotic" because of their lack of humane compassion, seeing PEOPLE as THINGS-- we would do well to stop the easy access to assault-type military weapons so indiscriminately on grounds that to forbid their sale would abrogate the Constitutional "freedom" of gun-lovers and gun dealers.

On one hand, as President Obama so well said, we've allowed too long for the inhumane destruction of human lives in mass massacres as if they were THINGS for the sake of the "rights" of extremely lethal weapons to be sold freely. As a result, too many Americans were denied their basic right to "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."

On the other hand, we can't pre-judge Hapsberger's autistics or any others. But we can't diagnose mass killers as psychotics only after they mass-kill. Better to deny our society warfare weapons, all USELESS in a civilized community. ff we don't go after the guns, Americans maddened with rage will go after the autistics-- 10% of Americans-- only because we can't control the guns that potentially take them from the category of autistic to psychotic through mass murder. THAT WOULD BE INSANE for autistic PEOPLE are worth more and owed freedom than THINGS like guns are owed freedom of traffic.