Gun Control & RKBA

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,475 posts)

19. In pari materia

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:13 AM

Oct 2012

"There is nothing ambiguous about the 2A."
Not in my opinion either but our opinions differ, thus the ambiguity.

"...conditioned upon..."
Which is the ambiguous point of contention.

There is no doubt that the BoR exists to protect individuals and their rights from governmental tyranny.

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - T Jefferson

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117275839

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Who gets free speech? [View all] needledriver Sep 2012 OP

Are you trying to end discussion of da militia clause in one swift blow? Tsk-tsk.nt Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #1

Not comparable. COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #2

Does it reasonably follow from the structure of 2A that the only purpose of RKBA petronius Oct 2012 #3

Not a question of whether it "reasonably COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #4

The Supreme Court disagrees with you: needledriver Oct 2012 #5

This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #26

And yet that has never been the way the Second Amendment has been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) TPaine7 Oct 2012 #6

Interesting, thanks. I'll have to do some more reading... (nt) petronius Oct 2012 #8

The purpose and scope... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #10

In pari materia is used to try and resolve an COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #18

In pari materia discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #19

Just because opinions differ does not COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #23

I don't answer questions twice. discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #27

Hard to point out ambiguity when there isn't any. COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #30

Near impossible to overcome a prejudice n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #31

In considering your opinion... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #37

The entire purpose of applying COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #38

Your whole argument is based on a misreading of the Second Amendment. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #21

You can try and run through semantic circles COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #24

You have it exactly backwards. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #32

It's called a Whereas. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #11

Well, for starters - COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #12

I didn't say the first amendment. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #14

I was referring to the hypothetical language you COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #16

It's a substitution. AtheistCrusader Oct 2012 #34

The prefatory clause is quite similar to the current use of whereas, as you say. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #33

According to... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #9

Where do you get that from the language of COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #13

The exact language: discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #15

Where do you get the idea that RKBA is COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #17

Your claim... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #20

You are assuming that such a non-enumerated COLGATE4 Oct 2012 #25

From history... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2012 #28

British Common Law for starters - the Bill of Rights from 1689 hack89 Oct 2012 #29

Actually it is quite comparable. In fact, a very close analogue exists from that timeframe. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #22

I think it's obvious 4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #7

Well needledriver, I think there is nothing left of the "Militia" arguments made in this thread. TPaine7 Oct 2012 #35

Who gets free speech? Oneka Oct 2012 #36