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.
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. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.
As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".
And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
Context my good man, context.
"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".
When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.
Enigma.
If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
Examples being:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
or simply
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
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. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.
As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".
And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
Context my good man, context.
"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".
When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.
Enigma.
If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
Examples being:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
or simply
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........
WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Clue, it wouldn’t
The stupidity here is unbelievable.
What is the militia?
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.
This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.
Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "
--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
Punctuation means nothing in our Second Amendment but for pauses--emphasis.
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. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.
As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".
And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
Context my good man, context.
"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".
When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.
Enigma.
If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
Examples being:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
or simply
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.
That's what an enigma is. It can't be figured out.
Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written. A constitution is no place for riddles.
I answered the question. That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.
I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
even less than that. Our Second Amendment needs no punctuation to mean the same exact thing.Punctuation means nothing in our Second Amendment but for pauses--emphasis.
^^^^^^ Sinking like the Titanic
The People are the militia. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.
The stupidity here is unbelievable.
What is the militia?
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.
This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.
Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "
--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
A. The Militia
B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
c. The People within the Militia
They gave it to "the People"
Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.I answered the question. That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.
No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.
I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
Again for the literarily infirm, the point has nothing in the world to do with "increasing" or "decreasing" "government authority" or whatever other paranoid fantasies the comic book you're reading instead of my posts, may present. It's a simple breaking down of the words in the document, which is exactly what this thread is supposed to be about. Read the title. And this is, what, six times now you've insisted the phase "makes sense" while completely unable to explain its function, hence my point.
Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.
We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".
Since that cannot be its function --- what is?
No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.
The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.
I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.
That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.
Again for the literarily infirm, the point has nothing in the world to do with "increasing" or "decreasing" "government authority" or whatever other paranoid fantasies the comic book you're reading instead of my posts, may present. It's a simple breaking down of the words in the document, which is exactly what this thread is supposed to be about. Read the title. And this is, what, six times now you've insisted the phase "makes sense" while completely unable to explain its function, hence my point.
See #503. Clear answers do not require your trademark verbosity.
As to the grammar of the 18th Century, avail yourself of the fine online sources available to you.
There's no enigma. The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.
The People are the militia. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.The stupidity here is unbelievable.
What is the militia?
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.
This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.
Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "
--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
A. The Militia
B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
c. The People within the Militia
They gave it to "the People"
Yes, it is. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, is what our Second Amendment is about.The People are the militia. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.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.
This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.
Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "
--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
A. The Militia
B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
c. The People within the Militia
They gave it to "the People"
If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"
So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?
But continue please, you do provide comic relief.
Yes, it is. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, is what our Second Amendment is about.The People are the militia. Only the right wing appeals to ignorance of this term.Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.
This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.
Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "
--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.
And yet, if what you originally stated were true, and they took great time and effort to write it out so that there would be no misunderstanding (and that was your argument), I've shown how, men of great ability could have easily done that.
The problem in the theory is that they did not do so, so they intentionally did not give the right to either:
A. The Militia
B. Soldiers in service of this Militia
c. The People within the Militia
They gave it to "the People"
If so, it is not in the 2nd. Kind of strange omission of which you have no reasoning as to why it would have been omitted in the first place, seeing that, spelling that point out would have been so simple (delete people, insert Militia). And if you are correct, the 2nd is horribly misplace as well, being that it is within "the Bill of Rights"
So your argument is, that the Founding Fathers were Idiots? Is that it?
But continue please, you do provide comic relief.
There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it. Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves. Using firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago. If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively. You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom? Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone? Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
No, I don't live in fear. Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms. When that happens it does. So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it. Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves. Using firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago. If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively. You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom? Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone? Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
No, I don't live in fear. Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms. When that happens it does. So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT! Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder. In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.
There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it. Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves. Using firearms at night against a moving person is nothing like shooting cans on a camping trip 5 years ago. If you point a gun at a potentially armed person you better be prepared to use it effectively. You have to make decisions within a fraction of a second that can effect the rest of your life. Is your line fire going to send bullets into your neighbors or your kids bedroom? Does the intruder have a gun in his hand or a cell phone? Is this really an intruder or is he your drunken neighbor who entering the wrong house or your wayward son returning home?I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?
No, I don't live in fear. Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms. When that happens it does. So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.
Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.
Faced with an intruder in the home, most people would be better off following the 911 operator's advice when reporting an intruder. GET OUT! Go out the back door, crawl through a window or hide but do not engage the intruder. In other words, being faced with fight or flight, flight is probably your best option.
There're certainly exceptions, but if you're like most people who buy a gun for protection, you would be far better off without it. Despite the huge effort to publicize successful defenses of life and property with firearms, the statistics tell a far different story of people shooting their kids, neighbors, police, and themselves.
The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.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. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.
As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".
And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
Context my good man, context.
"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".
When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.
Enigma.
If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
Examples being:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
or simply
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.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. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.
As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".
And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
Context my good man, context.
"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".
When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.
Enigma.
If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
Examples being:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
or simply
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.
The phrase was put in the amendment to gain support of several states strongly committed to a citizen militias for defense of the country.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. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.
As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".
And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.
Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.
Context my good man, context.
"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".
When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.
Enigma.
If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:
Examples being:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
or simply
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.
None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?
Why indeed. That's the question, isn't it. The simple fact is, (<comma) if your intent is not to single out the Militia as a setting for firearms, then you have no need of that introductory phrase whatsoever, indeed by putting it in there and in fact leading off with it, you've clouded the issue of what the intent is. On the other hand if the intent is to limit firearms to the context of a Militia, you haven't specifically spelled that out either.
The fact is most people had no real interest in the right to bear arms because in those days firearms meant muskets which were lousy for self defense, very inaccurate unless you had a long rifle and were too costly. About the only real use was in volley firings which is how muskets were commonly used in militias. The reason for the 2nd amendment 230 years ago and today are completely different.
