A well regulated militia.

"as it should be interpreted", not "as it has been interpreted".

- - - Updated - - -

yes you could.

 

The right to peaceably assemble is what it says. It does not say anything about the rights of others. Now you are interpreting the first amendment.

 

So you believe we can assemble anywhere we want at any time we want? You think that's what it ment?

Sigh....this is why the world laughs at us. People can't even reference the constitution properly lol.

 

I think the opposite of that. Try to follow the thread

 

lol, yes I'm interpreting the 1st amendment. So? Textualists, originalist, developmentalists, w/e, all legal approaches to interpreting the text require that you interpret the text. It doesn't mean that you're changing it unfaithfully.

The 1st says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble". You can't peaceably assemble while violating the rights of others.

This isn't rocket science. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms - it doesn't protect any "right" to murder, or any other misuse of that right.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you not see the obvious difference between "shall not be infringed" and ">>>Congress<<< shall make no law..."?

 

Careful with the lol. You will be labeled not serious. I see what you are saying but I also see a lot of interpretation going on here. Peaceably means without violence. Can I non violently assemble on a bridge, freeway, military installation or at the superbowl? Non violence is the standard....not that I am inconveinencing others.

 

haha, yes, there is legal interpretation there - just like every single explanation of Constitutional law

Sure! You can peaceably assemble in the middle of the Super Bowl, right on the green! But you have to have permission to be there.

The 1st doesn't allow people to violate the rights of others. Really, I assume you're able to see a difference between someone bearing arms and using them to massacre innocents, and you wouldn't have a hard time determining which of the two is protected by the 2nd, right? Same thing with the 1st. It's not rocket science.

 

Now we get into when are my rights to safety violated. They are if you keep anthrax at your house but not a gun that you could shoot thru the wall and kill my kids. It all comes down to interpretation. I could easily make the case that you owning a gun in my neighborhood violates my right to safety.

 

To keep the federal government at bay.

Good point.

Then what's the point of peaceably assembling?

Civil disobedience is often necessary to make an impact.

 

You could make the case and you'd fail. My possessing firearms itself isn't any violation of your rights. My misuse - i.e. shooting at your house - is a violation of your rights. What's so challenging about the difference?

 

The same misuse would apply to anthrax. But mere possession of it is illegal. And this is why your argument fails

 

exactly how? I've been asserting how the 2nd amendment should be interpreted - and you're saying, in effect, "it hasn't been interpreted the way you (troianii) say it should, therefore you're wrong and it should be interpreted the way it has been, because it has been interpreted the way it has been." Fail?

 

You implied that simply possessing a firearm can not be construed as a violation of my right to safety. I gave a very clear example of how possession of something by you can violate my right to safety. I have precedent.

 

saying one has to be in a formal militia to keep and bear arms is akin to saying you have to work for the press to have freedom of speech
That might be a valid argument if the First Amendment had a prefatory phrase in it like " A well regulated militia being necessary..."

It doesn't and your argument is lame

 

Yes, so again, you're saying that my argument about how it should be interpreted is wrong because it hasn't been interpreted that way.

This is like person A saying, "you know, I think the law should be different...", and person B coming along and saying, "it isn't different, therefore you're wrong and it shouldn't be different. Fail."

This is just abject silliness.

 

Are you saying my argument is wrong on some basis I missed?

 

The thread has reached it's post limit. I am closing this thread - please carry on the discussion in part two, at the link below

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481320&p=1066760455#post1066760455