Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/03/11/a-fascinating-computer-analysi.html
…
4 Likes
I don’t think the GOP gives a flying fuck about grammar
8 Likes
6 Likes
I always found it fascinating that it’s the only right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that actually provides the reasoning behind its inclusion (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”) and yet Second Amendment absolutists continue to pretend it’s really about something else.
10 Likes
What do they pretend it’s about?
1 Like
Another thing that conservative justices have tied themselves in knots over – some of them (Scalia, Thomas) have insisted that “cruel and unusual punishment” should be judged by the standards of the 18th Century, when things like flogging were OK. But the definition of “arms” in their minds should not have been limited to single shot muskets and need to encompass a lot of today’s lethal firepower.
Also, conservative justices have tried to arbitrarily limit sections of the Constitution they feel are imprecise (notably right now, Article I powers of Congress) but push for the most expansive possible understanding of the Second Amendment in all of its imprecision. In both cases they have rejected precendents and substituted inconsistent reasoning that conforms to their ideology.
They are radical, untethered activists, but the DC press and punditry refuses to say so.
20 Likes
All the non-well-regulated-militia-based reasons to own guns.
Certainly none of the private gun owners I know are part of a well regulated militia tasked with maintaining the security of the free State.
13 Likes
14 Likes
Grizzly 
10 Likes
A militia is just an temporarily organized group of armed citizens though, isn’t it? If citizens don’t have guns, where does the militia come from?
All of the gun owners you know should consider themselves available to join a militia when necessary. It’s the natural flipside of the right to bear arms.
2 Likes
I believe that’s why they put in the “well regulated” part.
But most private gun owners in 2020 have no plans or intention of joining a militia, so it’s more than a little odd that they cling to the Second Amendment so fiercely.
Not to mention that the kind of militias the Founding Fathers were actually talking about have been obsolete for a number of generations because we have other structural mechanisms in place to fill the role militias once did.
9 Likes
If your “militia” is nothing more than a list of all the citizens in the area who own firearms, you’re going to have rude surprise when you call them up to defend the security of a free state.
In the absence of periodic practice in maneuvers and marksmanship, a “militia” is nothing more than an armed gang.
12 Likes
And it’s not even that unless you have some kind of firearms registry.
5 Likes
“They specifically searched for instances where phrases such as “bear arms” and “keep arms” were used, and noted the context, the context, and adjacent language…”
But what about the context? 
1 Like
I thought it was mainly about “States’ Rights”.
@Mindysan33 Thanks for a real laugh out loud.
3 Likes
7 Likes
I’ll have to read this article fully when I have some time.
They gave the reasoning, but it isn’t dependent on being in a militia.
Based on how our early military was set up - it basically wasn’t. They didn’t want a large, expensive, standing army. They wanted a well armed populace they could pull from to form an army when needed. But in order to do that, you have to have a well armed populace to begin with. This includes things like canons that the rich owned (great way to be an artillery officer).
Now, one could rightly argue that the reasoning laid out in the amendment is obsolete now, because we have the huge standing army. But the right isn’t dependent on the being IN a militia. Many people were not in a Militia until they were needed and then joined up. But they needed to be armed in the event they were needed.
4 Likes
It sounds like it was written by committee. . . kind of like how the US flag looks.
2 Likes
