- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Police: Multiple Victims in South Carolina church shooting [W:224]
Fair enough. Although in my case the fact of the SA's political role as an impediment to change is more important than any theological consideration. One historical point to consider: since 18th century militia members often provided their own weapons, the first clause adds weight to the second rather than limiting it.
Yes, the SA is quite clear indeed...and the obvious context of the first clause - the preparatory clause which sets the context of the entirety of the Amendment, particularly in view of the political issues and debates of the time over whether we should have an army at all or instead simply rely upon militias - is flatly ignored by the modern gun-rights lobby.
I really don't want to debate it - not because I can't prove my point to my satisfaction, but because every such debate I've seen devolves into what I can only liken to a religious debate over Biblical texts wherein with rhetorical tap-dancing, one side will obfuscate or flatly ignore the obvious text and the context thereof. Why? Because that side absolutely must at all costs protect its beliefs, its dogma.
And so it is with the SA - to modern gun-rights enthusiasts, the obvious context of the preparatory clause and the politics of the time in which it was written must be ignored, or at a minimum, twisted in order to protect their beliefs, their dogma. It's a religious debate in form, if not in function.
And that's why I really do try to stay out of SA debates - they're a waste of time and effort.
Fair enough. Although in my case the fact of the SA's political role as an impediment to change is more important than any theological consideration. One historical point to consider: since 18th century militia members often provided their own weapons, the first clause adds weight to the second rather than limiting it.