Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HAB911

(8,867 posts)
40. How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment?
Thu Sep 5, 2019, 09:33 AM
Sep 2019

(But I won't do that)

So what is “that”? “It’s the line before every chorus,” explained Loaf. “There’s nine of them, I think.

The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to ‘I won’t do that.'”

(Some of the things the song says he won’t do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you don’t go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)

On the other hand.....................

“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.”

What happened to the first part?!

The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.

The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.

Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase “A well regulated Militia.” They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.

The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.

Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.

This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.

Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRA’s attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founder’s had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

For many gun owners, guillaumeb Sep 2019 #1
People claiming rights they dont have Fullduplexxx Sep 2019 #2
Enabled by Antonin Scalia, the self proclaimed originalist guillaumeb Sep 2019 #8
Yes. Clever with words, but with the judicial temperament of McConnell. Hortensis Sep 2019 #15
And the integrity of McConnell. eom guillaumeb Sep 2019 #17
And of Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. nt Hortensis Sep 2019 #21
right, ignore elleng Sep 2019 #27
Merely prefatory. guillaumeb Sep 2019 #31
Zacly. elleng Sep 2019 #32
Making the US actually a part of the Commonwealth? guillaumeb Sep 2019 #34
"the right of _the people_" not the right of the members of the militia. n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2019 #37
You mean the right that the same framers ensconced in their respective state constitutions? X_Digger Sep 2019 #10
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. guillaumeb Sep 2019 #18
Kind of clear what they meant, though, when you look at the states. X_Digger Sep 2019 #25
What is so difficult to understand about the phrase "well regulated militia" in a Federal guillaumeb Sep 2019 #30
Pizza being important for study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes is protected. X_Digger Sep 2019 #43
Hell of a job, up against the most tyranical government we've ever had. Paladin Sep 2019 #5
Equally foolish is the idea that these mostly untrained gun owners might guillaumeb Sep 2019 #35
That is PRECISELY what I've been hearing from pro-gunners, for decades. Paladin Sep 2019 #38
And what they really mean is, guillaumeb Sep 2019 #42
2nd enables fighting FOR the government, not against HAB911 Sep 2019 #39
Ironic that many of these people are apparently afraid of their own guillaumeb Sep 2019 #41
The gun-humpers conveniently forget... albacore Sep 2019 #6
Some US citizens have never accepted that the slave faction lost that civil war. eom guillaumeb Sep 2019 #9
Even more... albacore Sep 2019 #13
The self described "sovereign citizens"? guillaumeb Sep 2019 #14
Oh, THAT Alex Hamilton. n/t elocs Sep 2019 #3
Most gunners only read "shall not be infringed." They are too stupid, or attracted to guns, to admit Hoyt Sep 2019 #4
They're the same people who read articles on illegal immigration... Initech Sep 2019 #7
Which confirms that "well-regulated" is synonymous with "well-trained" in today's syntax NickB79 Sep 2019 #11
And that argument, precisely, is why we have a national guard, administered by the several States... Volaris Sep 2019 #22
All well and good, but the militia was based on the people keeping and bearing arms. aikoaiko Sep 2019 #12
No it is not it's a gift from the supreme court . The militia was based on putting down insurrection Fullduplexxx Sep 2019 #19
No. No guns at home was never part of the deal. aikoaiko Sep 2019 #20
So when, prior to Heller Docreed2003 Sep 2019 #26
Prior to Heller it was ambiguous. aikoaiko Sep 2019 #29
So citizens owning guns is not a danger to the country? hack89 Sep 2019 #16
Dipshits shooting up schools, churches, theaters, are a danger to this country. denbot Sep 2019 #23
Just commenting on the OP hack89 Sep 2019 #28
Exactly n/t denbot Sep 2019 #33
K & R bookmarked for future reference FakeNoose Sep 2019 #24
What I gleaned from Federalist Paper #29 kentuck Sep 2019 #36
How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment? HAB911 Sep 2019 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Alex hamilton on the 2a a...»Reply #40