iambiguous wrote:obsrvr524 wrote: iambiguous wrote:I maintain that this is embedded subjectively in political prejudices rooted in dasein. The objectivists insist that, on the contrary, there is only one objective interpretation and it is theirs.
Let's call this the "psychology of objectivism".
That is NOT true.
Well I guess that settles that then. For example, in your head. Where, I suspect, all of your own dogmatic value judgments are settled.
obsrvr524 wrote: What defenders (all of those you call "objectivists") are saying is that the SCOTUS is to fairly attempt to interpret what was originally intended. If something else is needed it is up to Congress to amend the Constitution.
On the contrary, I'm not arguing that defenders are necessarily objectivists. I'm arguing that those defenders who insist that only their own defense is rational and that all other interpretations not wholly in sync with their own are necessarily irrational are objectivists.
In fact I am an advocate myself for the right of American citizens to bear arms. I'm armed myself. It's just that I recognize that others, based on different sets of assumptions regarding what the words in the amendment mean, are also able to make reasonable arguments.
And that depending on whether the blue states or the red states are able to send more representatives to Congress, the legal parameters of "well regulated" are clearly political prejudices. Why on earth do you suppose that cases keep ending up in the courts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... ted_StatesInstead, I focus on the words "well regulated".
obsrvr524 wrote: As usual your default and derail to "objectivism" has nothing at all to do with any of this.
No, as usual, from my point of view, you presume that your own understanding of all this is the the one and the only understanding that counts.
Consider:
How is this not applicable to you:
1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview regarding the 2nd amendment.
2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective on the 2nd amendment expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.
3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.
4] Some begin to share this philosophy regarding the 2nd amendment with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.
5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about the 2nd amendment with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.
6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own views about the 2nd amendment as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.
7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original quest for truth regarding the 2nd amendment, has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".
iambiguous wrote:It's not the militia part that some emphasize, it's the part about the right to bear arms being well regulated. Then the part about what it means to regulate those citizens with guns that are not in a militia.
obsrvr524 wrote: Wrong again. It says that the "militia" being well regulated, NOT the citizens.
Again, that's just your interpretation. Others insist that if the part about a well regulated militia wasn't important in regard to a cirizens right to own guns, the amendment would simply have read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
iambiguous wrote:And who would do the regulating if not the federal, state and local government? And how would an understanding of being "well regulated" not be embedded existentially in the political prejudices of each individual?
obsrvr524 wrote: Political prejudices are irrelevant to the right for a "well regulated militia".
Once again, from your own doctrinaire, authoritarian mind, merely asserting it makes it so.
iambiguous wrote:how these political prejudices are rooted in dasein rather than in some "my way or the highway" political dogma.
obsrvr524 wrote: Again - irrelevant. The issue is simply whether the rights exist - NOT who is "objectively" right or wrong.
Same thing. Every single word in the amendment must be understood only as you understand them. And how you came to understand them has nothing to do with the existential trajectory of the experiences, relationships and access to specific information and knowledge you happened upon in regard to gun ownership in America.
