@ JUICY:

I'm a Christian. The Bible specifically denounces homosexuality. As for gun control, read the Second Amendment. Gun control isn't conservative/liberal. It's how you interpret the amendment. Either amend the Constitution or get rid of gun control. It's black and white. Yes, I know that some people think that means the the national guard should bear arms. I believe it gives ordinary citizens the right to bear arms.

unpleasant maybe.
but not enslaved to a fairy tale


the 2nd amendment DOES give ordinary citizens the right to bear arms.
it's to prevent tyrannical government from taking over america.
something the founding fathers were deathly afraid of, acknowledging the possibility of an american totalitarian government.
which is more than you all are willing to acknowledge. your 'it cant happen here' logic is naive to say the least.

Oh my God! Diplofool made a lucid and well reasoned argument!

What a lengthy read.
Quite an attention seeker aren't you Diplomat?

"Yes, I know that some people think that means the the national guard should bear arms. I believe it gives ordinary citizens the right to bear arms."

diplomat1824, it isn't just you. It's also the Supreme Court and that means that the right to bear arms is an individual right protected by the Constitution. It's that simple. The argument about whether the government can keep American citizens from owning guns is over. It's just about logical regulation, like not letting metal patients buy tommy guns.

Even Obama can't take our guns now. Unless he pulls a Jackson, that is.

Hi everyone,

I'd just like to say, there's a really lucid and well-reasoned paper available at http://linglaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/summary-of-my-second-amendment-paper.html that discusses how the language of the second amendment lends itself to gun control. In short, because the infinitival "to" is omitted in the second instance (to keep and bear arms), the two conditions are contingent on one another; that is to say, one must bear arms (be in an organized militia) to keep arms.

I bet Osama bin Laden ...er... Obama and Biden try. But that could result in a second civil war. Us "redneck southerners" will NOT give up our guns. You won't get my guns until either I'm dead or out of ammo...

It don't matter what the paper says. The Supreme Court said it was an individual right. You can regulate it sensibly, like not giving away bullets in Happy Meals, but the government cannot deny your right to own a firearm.

Linguistically speaking, the Supreme Court is wrong.

When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution it can't be wrong.

Judicially, no, but to extend their bailiwick to linguistics is inappropriate. Really, you should try reading at least the summary of the paper; it's not too long.

That paper is the most arcane rant on semantics I've ever seen. Surely there are better arguments against an individual right to bear arms than quirks in the prose of the Constitution?

"the book of mormon is probably the most hilarious book I've ever read."

Well... that's bigoted. Have you actually read it? I found it interesting and have more respect for Mormons now... when I hear people making fun of LDS I get apprehensive now. All this derision between belief systems is one of the great roots of human suffering. You would do well to remember that as a utopian.

Arcane rant on semantics? It's written by a former linguist studying in law school. I'm sorry, but he knows what he's talking about, and vis-à-vis language he's more credible than Scalia.

Vis-à-vis constitutional law Scalia is more credible.

I also doubt that there is only one linguistic interpretation here.

Sadly, I agree with Invictus. The 2nd Amendment is clearly a personal right to bear handguns and rifles. It's too bad the 2A has such a lousy rep, Invictus, making the point.

:/

Clearly there's not only one linguistic interpretation, as Stevens and Scalia, both native speakers of English, have interpreted it differently, but a pretty compelling argument is made for the contingency of one verb on the other.

@ CJTK: You're also agreeing with me.

"The 2nd Amendment is clearly a personal right to bear handguns and rifles." ok but what about machine guns etc

Are the considered arms? (hint: that's a rhetorical question and the answer is YES). You can bear a cannon if you are physically capable.

and you don't think thats at all stupid?

Isn't one of the major problems in many countries around the world the fact that its citizens are heavily armed and therefore refuse any government except one they and only they want? Examples are Somalia, Sierra Leone, Iraq for a long time, Syria, Thailand, Afghanistan etc? Conversely, states where citizens aren't heavily armed...Europe, China, Australia. It's interesting how the USA maintains its stability with an armed populace.

Argue linguistics on the 2nd Amendment all you want...but it is wholly clear that the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment was to protect a populace from a tyrannical government by allowing individuals the right to keep arms.

One of the first acts of any dictator is to impose more and more gun control.

rratcliff is right about the small town example. It's an empirical example that owning guns = less crime. That's not to say there shouldn't be safeguards to preventing criminals from acquiring them.

Yes I have read it. why would I waste time bragging about something I havnt actually done?
I find it to be hilarious. thats my opinion.

I am not a utopian at all. I have explained that in painful detail and length

Darwyn, I don't think anyone can say that it is "wholly clear" what exactly any intent of the constitution was. At any rate, isn't a tyrannical government just as likely to arise from a group of well-armed militant citizens as it is from the government? I mean, really, what use do people have for assault rifles aside from school shootings and instituting dictatorships?

Also, you don't think the phrasing of the 2nd amendment is in any way useful in determining its intent? I mean, semantics is the study of how language is used to convey ideas, after all, and if we don't look closely at the phrasing of the 2nd amendment, and instead impose our predetermined opinion of its content, doesn't it lose some (or rather most) of its significance? Doesn't this have some rather grim implications for the rest of the constitution?

Assault rifles are perfect with the nanny state police break down your doors with their nanny state provided assault rifles. I'll take an M-60 please when it comes time to defend my home from an intruding nanny state police force.

Stop your fear-mongering and contribute something other than knee-jerk reaction, please.

ok being able to defend your home, but why in a supposedly civilised country would you need to carry a concealed handgun