There’s certainly no point discussing anything with you if you’re going to take my remarks out of context. I said: "Playing games about parsing archaic grammar (instead of pointing to substance of some kind), " after directing you to the analysis of historians and legal scholars on the historical and legal meaning iof the 2nd amerdment, which you have ignored so as to try to change the subject back to your pointless digression. I really shouldn’t need to say this, but meaning relies on context. Understanding the meaning of historical documents requires some reference to history, and legal jargon of any era requires people educated in law to interpret. I stand by my observation that hanging your argument on an analysis of grammar alone is preposterous.
I concluded by pointing out that the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment is moot for practical purposes. I don’t think there’s anything further for you to reply to in any case.
I really hate having to explain again and again why it is already being interpreted correctly.
Preposterous. So comically so that it can only have come from some NRA publication.
You might want to read what (some) historians and legal scholars think about the matter: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458… based on research done by the Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/advance-constitutional-change/second-amendment
Playing games about parsing archaic grammar (instead of pointing to substance of some kind) strikes me as a really desperate attempt to muddy the waters. Honestly, you shouldn’t worry: Despite its being obsolete, the 2nd amendment is not going to go away, or stop being misinterpreted, as long as there’s money to be made selling firearms. Nobody is coming for your guns.
That feels pretty crazy to me already, because it imposes a huge social and economic burden for a really small payoff.
And your “solution” doesn’t?
… your metric for minimal success is prevention of all violence regardless of predictability or tool use. </>
I haven’t said or implied any such thing. Please do not mischaracterize my position.
As I’ve said, I don’t care whether you believe it or not — it’s just a digression. But for what it’s worth, it’s accepted as fact by every reputable news source I’ve seen (one example: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/), and I’ve never heard of the basic facts being doubted by any serious person. As far as I can see, you’re just making noise because you don’t like to believe Obama ever did anything wrong.
The actual point is that every president (and in fact every national-level politician) commits crimes on a routine basis. There’s plenty for republicans to retaliate with if Trump is denied a pardon by a democratic president (in the unlikely event that he’s ever convicted of anything). For that matter, you yourself may be committing three felonies a day without knowing it (https://books.google.com/books/about/Three_Felonies_a_Day.html?id=2xkDvMQlh-YC&source=kp_book_description). And certainly there is the matter of exarcerbating the already deep political divisions in the country. One could argue that a responsible president should pardon Trump (if it ever came to that) just to “heal the nation” (i.e. to avoid the rioting). One might be wrong about that, but it wouldn’t be a crazy argument.
Again, the people who insist that Trump is going to prison are just making noise because they think wishing will make it so. And it’s kind of pointless to argue about it anyway: we’ll eventually see what happens. I myself am not going to be happy about it either way. In principle, Trump should go to prison, but the fallout from that would certainly be very unpleasant.
… also, you don’t mention why your hypothetical potential crime victim couldn’t serve in her state’s militia.
I like the way you think, but I don’t see anything like that ever getting passed. The NRA and the gun nuts are adamantly opposed to any law that chips away at the absolute and unencumbered “right” to own guns, so having the loss of the right to own guns in the bill would most likely doom it in its cradle.
It night not be a bad idea to actually enforce all of the gun laws already on the books. The ones most often ignored are some of those governing gun sales. 50% of gun crimes are done with guns purchased from 11% of gun dealers, and there are laws that are supposed to stop that.
I didn’t say it was a complete solution. I said it was a start.
Look up the Las Vagas shooting, whose perpetrator never did, or would have, triggered any kind of ‘red flag’ law currently in force or under consideration, nor any such hypothetical law that could pass constitutional muster. It was only the deadliest mass shooting event in US history.
Your saying “not true” does not make it untrue that plenty of people who commited acts of violence (with or without guns) never showed any actionable ‘red flags.’ Even if what you said were true of all mass shooters, which it is not, it’s not just mass shooters we’ve been talking about.