Yet it’s being pilpulled to shreds and we all have memes about how it could have been clearer. The people who fought the British have no excuse for not knowing this would happen.
The ONLY way it could be any clearer is by rewording it thus:
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That changes no meaning at all from the original and is clear as day. It took me 0.3 nanoseconds to think of it that way based on the original. Anyone who tries to say the 2nd amendment is unclear is either lying to themselves more than to you, or doesn't understand English.
Anyone who says it’s sufficiently clear has somehow missed how watered down it has become, and doesn’t understand that laws aren’t attacked by friendly laymen but by hostile lawyers. There are ways to make airtight documents that stand the test of time, venetian merchant law does very well at this, as did English common law until recently (today’s judges make a mockery of the institution, but on purpose).
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. You insist the founding fathers' wording is sufficiently clear, despite living in a world when their supposedly clear statements have been perverted by hostile lawyers. Further, anyone who points out that this has happened, and points out that, as compared to similar legal documents intended to last for centuries, the 2A is written unclearly, is one of those hostile lawyers.
Is that about right?
If relativism has no place in the constitution, the constitution should have said so, i.e., should have clarified that point. If you can't see why such a clarification is necessary for a law intended to last for centuries or longer, YOU should not be taking part in this discussion.
noun
a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral:
You have a right to say what you please. dictionary.com
define the word "infringe":
verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon):
Don't infringe on his privacy. dictionary.com
As in; "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".
Furthermore the type of "right" we are dealing with was outlined in the Declaration of Independence. It reads as follows; "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
By the very nature of government tyranny you will be placed in a position of self-defense. It says our right to self-defense is granted by God. The simple part of "shall not be infringed" should be clear enough. This is why gun laws are already unconstitutional.
They have always manipulated language to control us and they're gonna continue to do it in different ways. Language doesn't just "change over time". It gets manipulated over time and that's what causes us to forget proper definitions a meanings. The words our fathers used can clearly be defined. But citing "anti-2A memes" as a viable threat means you might just be sucked into a whole 'nother void of lies and questioning yourself.
Go read the Canadian whatever-it-is. THAT'S vaguely written. It reads like Trudeau himself wrote it.
You wasted all those words to say "the constitution doesn't specify if it should be interpreted in a literalist fashion, or according to changing contemporary language and understanding, and further leaves much unsaid about the parameters of the right it purports to protect" which was exactly my point from the beginning.
The constitution can't simultaneously be clear enough and omit everything you just said, among many many other omissions. It's a legal document intended to last for centuries or perhaps perpetually, these issues simply HAVE to be addressed, and they were not. It's not impossible to do, and by the time of the founding fathers, others had already successfully drafted legal documents that remained in use for centuries.
If you think my posts are "anti 2A" you're a fucking illiterate retard, go back to reddit. I am posting in support the God given right to bear arms, and the way we support that right down through the centuries is by clearly codifying it into constitutional law, exactly as the founding fathers didn't do.
Go read the Canadian whatever-it-is. THAT'S vaguely written. It reads like Trudeau himself wrote it.
See, I don't think you even understand the issues here. In fact, the Canadian Charter is very clear, it says right at the beginning that it's NOT to be interpreted in a literalist fashion. It's a shit document for protecting rights, for the same reason as the US constitution does a shit job protecting your rights: it didn't specify literalist interpretation.
“Logic doesn’t work on you” says the guy who insists the wording is good even as he lives in a world where it isn’t, and who gets upset at anyone who suggests improvement.
Yet it’s being pilpulled to shreds and we all have memes about how it could have been clearer. The people who fought the British have no excuse for not knowing this would happen.
The ONLY way it could be any clearer is by rewording it thus:
"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That changes no meaning at all from the original and is clear as day. It took me 0.3 nanoseconds to think of it that way based on the original. Anyone who tries to say the 2nd amendment is unclear is either lying to themselves more than to you, or doesn't understand English.
Anyone who says it’s sufficiently clear has somehow missed how watered down it has become, and doesn’t understand that laws aren’t attacked by friendly laymen but by hostile lawyers. There are ways to make airtight documents that stand the test of time, venetian merchant law does very well at this, as did English common law until recently (today’s judges make a mockery of the institution, but on purpose).
So are you a "hostile lawyer" or are you just making excuses for them?
Relativism has no part in this discussion.
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. You insist the founding fathers' wording is sufficiently clear, despite living in a world when their supposedly clear statements have been perverted by hostile lawyers. Further, anyone who points out that this has happened, and points out that, as compared to similar legal documents intended to last for centuries, the 2A is written unclearly, is one of those hostile lawyers.
Is that about right?
If relativism has no place in the constitution, the constitution should have said so, i.e., should have clarified that point. If you can't see why such a clarification is necessary for a law intended to last for centuries or longer, YOU should not be taking part in this discussion.
define the word "right".
noun a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please. dictionary.com
define the word "infringe":
verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy. dictionary.com
As in; "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".
Furthermore the type of "right" we are dealing with was outlined in the Declaration of Independence. It reads as follows; "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
By the very nature of government tyranny you will be placed in a position of self-defense. It says our right to self-defense is granted by God. The simple part of "shall not be infringed" should be clear enough. This is why gun laws are already unconstitutional.
They have always manipulated language to control us and they're gonna continue to do it in different ways. Language doesn't just "change over time". It gets manipulated over time and that's what causes us to forget proper definitions a meanings. The words our fathers used can clearly be defined. But citing "anti-2A memes" as a viable threat means you might just be sucked into a whole 'nother void of lies and questioning yourself.
Go read the Canadian whatever-it-is. THAT'S vaguely written. It reads like Trudeau himself wrote it.
You wasted all those words to say "the constitution doesn't specify if it should be interpreted in a literalist fashion, or according to changing contemporary language and understanding, and further leaves much unsaid about the parameters of the right it purports to protect" which was exactly my point from the beginning.
The constitution can't simultaneously be clear enough and omit everything you just said, among many many other omissions. It's a legal document intended to last for centuries or perhaps perpetually, these issues simply HAVE to be addressed, and they were not. It's not impossible to do, and by the time of the founding fathers, others had already successfully drafted legal documents that remained in use for centuries.
If you think my posts are "anti 2A" you're a fucking illiterate retard, go back to reddit. I am posting in support the God given right to bear arms, and the way we support that right down through the centuries is by clearly codifying it into constitutional law, exactly as the founding fathers didn't do.
See, I don't think you even understand the issues here. In fact, the Canadian Charter is very clear, it says right at the beginning that it's NOT to be interpreted in a literalist fashion. It's a shit document for protecting rights, for the same reason as the US constitution does a shit job protecting your rights: it didn't specify literalist interpretation.
You're right. I should have stopped at "Shall not be infringed". It seems logic doesn't work on you.
“Logic doesn’t work on you” says the guy who insists the wording is good even as he lives in a world where it isn’t, and who gets upset at anyone who suggests improvement.