Kentucky woman sues state over abortion ban so she can terminate her pregnancy

stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to News@lemmy.world – 537 points –
kentucky.com

A Kentucky woman Friday filed an emergency class-action lawsuit, asking a Jefferson County judge to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. It’s the first lawsuit of its kind in Kentucky since the state banned nearly all abortions in 2022 and one of the only times nationwide since before Roe v. Wade in 1973 that an adult woman has asked a court to intervene on her behalf and allow her to get an abortion.

193

You are viewing a single comment

Wtf do you think "well regulated" means?

It means "functioning as expected".

Who do you think is in the militia?

(edit: source https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm )

Name one other context where anyone uses "well regulated" to mean that. You can't, because it's a bad faith argument based on pretending words mean something other than what they plainly do.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regulate#:~:text=To%20control%20or%20direct%20according,for%20accurate%20and%20proper%20functioning.

Definition 3. Remember, the English you speak isn't the exact same as English spoken over 2 centuries ago, in this context the obvious and predominant meaning at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment is that "well-regulated" didn't mean "regulation" as you imagine it now, it was more along the lines of well-functioning/trained/maintained/whatever.

But the meaning isn't even relevant because the "right to bear arms" isn't bound by it:

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.

From a linguistically unbiased standpoint, it's clear that the first half, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a reasoning for the directive, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The usage of commas has changed over time, which is where a lot of the confusion comes from nowadays, a more modern reconstruction would only use one comma.

The term for it would be "absolute clause" – it serves many purposes, and in this case it gives reasoning for a something, but doesn't lock that something to the reasoning.

Politics has seeped deep into peoples' view of the linguistics of the amendment, but it's really simple, this is basic grammar. It doesn't say nor imply "The right of a well-regulated Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they specifically wrote it as "the right of the people" for a reason.

Making it an argument of the 2nd Amendment only applying to militias is arguing in bad faith – it's clear that the amendment was written for everyone to have the right to bear arms, regardless of militias (although motivated by the security of the state, which well-armed militias can supply).

The only argument is whether the 2nd Amendment is suitable for the modern day, whether we should repeal/overwrite it, or at the very least to what extent protecting the "right of the people to bear arms" can be applied – obviously prisoners/felons can't bear arms, there are a lot of regulations on who can bear arms and which arms you can bear (not even "the militia" can just bear any arms they like). And of course other first world countries are faring much better without a "2nd Amendment", and with much tighter gun control.

But the meaning isn't even relevant because the "right to bear arms" isn't bound by it:

Ah yes, the old "half the amendment is just there for decoration" argument. That's where I stopped reading. You're a lost cause.

Not my fault you didn't pay attention in English classes when you were in school :/

Also I clearly stated why it was there – as a good reasoning for the amendment existing and emphasising the amendment's importance to the security of the state. It's right next to the most important freedom (to the writers), the freedom of speech, it's important to explain why they find it so essential.

Listen, you can have whatever stance you want on gun rights or whatever, but you can't just make up your own reality and twist linguistics to fit your perception. I'm very pro-strict-gun-control, as already stated, I'm extremely left-leaning, if anything interpreting the 2nd Amendment factually and accepting it not only applying to militias is more of a detriment to my political goals, but I'm not going to take that and decide that it's better to twist basic grammar to my liking. You can't just treat the 2nd Amendment syntactically differently from any other sentence for no reason. Linguistics isn't a political tool, it's a science (unless you're a prescriptivist).