Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.
Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.
There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
Spiking the Gun Myth
To best of my recollection, it's all here.Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
ARMING AMERICA
The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
By Michael A. Bellesiles.
The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns. The secondary reason is to kill animals. It's all about the need kill.Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.
There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
Spiking the Gun Myth
Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
just another story, right wingers. all political talk and no political action.special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
Punctuation means everything.
"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?
And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.
Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one. My example on punctuation is accurate. And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right. Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right. Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.
put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.
I open a letter with a knife and also, say dice and slice dinner. I never shot open a letter, or used a gun to prepare my food. Didn't shoot off a lid on a can of salsa. A good chef is only as good as his knives, But guns? Guns are about killing. Who is kidding who here?
Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.
If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns. The secondary reason is to kill animals. It's all about the need kill.Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.
There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
Spiking the Gun Myth
Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.
Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.
- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.
Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns. The secondary reason is to kill animals. It's all about the need kill.[/QUOTE] Well, I am good with not killing anything, animals or robbers. Or being killed , either by hoodlums with guns. Take away their guns, and they are just nothing...Taking away their guns, now there within lies the crux of the biscuit. We have maniacs that enable criminals that swear by their holier than thou sacrosanct 2nd Amendment. The Constitution has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?[QUO2nd amendment. TE="MaryL, post: 19871485, member: 34685"]Most murders were committed with knives, and -- contrary to the myth of primitive violence -- there were few murders outside Indian warfare (in North Carolina, on the average, there was only one murder every two years between 1663 and 1740).Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.
There was only one recorded murder using a gun.
Spiking the Gun Myth
Most murders are committed by murders, it goes without saying. Knives I use evey day. cooking food, mostly. Knives are variable tools. What the hell do you do with guns? There within lies the question. You kill or train to kill. That's pretty much it. Who needs THAT?
The Constitution has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?
Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."
Source?
Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.
Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
So I am like, whats going to stop someone from ratifying our constitution like say, the one that alters our current Constitution to reflect the tenor of our times? It's going to happen....Guns are NOT what they were in 1776.
Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.
The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
Funny.
The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.
The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.
It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.
A really bad placement.
The founding fathers were not dumb.
The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..
However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".
One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.
Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.
Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.
I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.
The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.
Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.
Funny.
The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.
Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.
C'mon, hook a brutha up.
