a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 10:53 am In what world does "outside sources" have thing one to do what's in the Constitution? There aren't footnotes or citations in the thing. There is the document
You cannot run away from the word "militia". It's in there on purpose. If they didn't care about them? They wouldn't have put that word in. So sorry, you can't look at anything by the words IN the Constitution to decide what that means.
I think your fellow Americans would disagree with how you're moving the statistics around to make it sound like gun violence isn't a thing in America.
Here we go again.
Historical documents ("outside sources") have nothing to do with 1) understanding how what is enshrined in the Constitution 2) how it was arrived at and 3) its intended meaning in the words of those where were there? I'm so confused.
************
I'm not running from the word militia, but rather many here are (IMHO) fully bought in to a modern day "collectivist reinterpretation" brought to us by organizations such as the Joyce Foundation which I've referenced above. Free country. You do you. I'll go with the research and arguments on both sides – from before the constitution was ratified right up until today – and do me.
Wish they had just gone with Madison's first draft (I grabbed this off Congress' website, in their "How the 2A was born" section - with them utilizing "outside sources"), but eliminating the "Quaker specific conscientious objector" wording:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. The committee of the House of Representatives that considered Madison’s formulation altered the order of the clauses such that the militia clause now came first,
with a new specification of the militia as composed of the body of the people, and made several other wording and punctuation changes.
*************
In truth, the Federalist, Anti Federalist, Madison, Mason, et. al. founding documents and historical accounts of the time, including letters and pamphlets and newspaper accounts and diaries, are really fascinating, especially when one realizes the ages (youth) of those directly involved in the creation of a newly born nation. Awe inspiring, actually. Yet here we are, in 2024, divided, discouraged, lost, or so it seems. But I digress.
*************
Never suggested "gun violence isn't a thing", or knowingly engaged in some sort of statistical shell game. I endeavor to share what I learn, and what makes sense to me, and be respectful of other's opinions and takes. Are you referring to my 99.99% comment above as suggesting I feel gun violence isn't a thing? If so, I think we've ending up somewhere here:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/
The point I was trying to make is "Why, if 99.99% of Americans who own guns are peaceful and law abiding, are so many of the existing and proposed gun laws and policies pointed directly at them? Shouldn't we instead point solutions directly at those perpetrating criminal violence (with any tool, and including guns), and the underlying causes which are at the foundation for the behavior? That was my inference and intent, hopefully more clearly explained?
**************
Alright, doing my best here. Sometimes what seems logical in my brain doesn't emanate from my keyboard. Appreciate those who take the time to share their takes. I learn from most here. Now I'm going to settings to shut off alerts for thread activity and responses. Fanlax is like time parasite.
It's a beautiful day and my gardening procrastination needs to end right now!
Be well.