How do you view our gun policy and second amendment?

[FA_Q2]

(joke)

It says "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The keyword is arms. A firearm is a type or arms. So are polearms, swords, knives, cannons, artillery, tanks, fighter jets and even missles. They are all arms. However we are restricted to have any of these.

If a tyrannical militia like the SS under Obama stormed my place, I would have nothing but this 12 gauge. The Obama SS would have me for toast!!

Give us back our full rights!! A tank is an arm!! Where is my right to own and bear a tank? Where is my right to an ICBM--I'll show those terrorists something then!

As soon as you can 'bear' a tank we can talk...

 

[FA_Q2]

What harm is there in me owning a Thomas Sub machine gun? Or even a tank?

It's not an issue for public concern except when a lot of people organize guns and tanks collectively.
With one individual who cares. But if you are talking about organizing arms, then people start to care.

What? Who are you talking about? Who exactly are your worried about? You worried about militias?

I'm saying what makes people nervous about anyone owning tanks, AK47 and automatic rifles, etc. is
when these are in "large numbers." So that's when they start screaming against "rights" to buy and bear arms.

What makes people calm down about guns is when they know the owners are as responsible
and well-trained as Police and Military who are professional about law enforcement. If more
citizens were like that, there would not be an issue with fear of criminals abusing the gun laws.
If we do a better job of screening out criminally and mentally ill threats to society, there won't
be such a hub-bub over gun laws. The focus would be on maintaining law, order and security first.
Any policy or use of guns to achieve that goal of safety and security would follow second.
We just have to meet in agreement on the goal, and these issues will no longer be such a hot issue!

I understand your point bu the average Citizen can't be in anyway as well trained as someone who devotes their life to it.

Then you are ignorant of what actually happens in those professions.

As an active duty military member I have no qualms about telling you that the vast majority of armed citizens I have ever met are FAR better trained and FAR more competent with their weapons than the vast majority of military members.

You think that the military actually trains their people in the proper use of their weapon and that really is not the case. Qualification is not very often and the metrics you need to achieve are pathetic. This does not, of course, apply to the more specialized segments of the armed forces (and I imagine the police) but you are talking about a very select few in that case. The vast majority of military weapons are in the hands of young soldiers that barely know how to handle them.

 

[danielpalos]

I have found two different interpretations I think are both correct if people are allowed to follow their own
1. One is the interpretation that the guns only applies to "well regulated MILITIAS" and specifically STATE militias or GOVT as the people. so it is about arming the official military, police, and other security personnel.
2. The other interpretation is that the PEOPLE refers to CITIZENS and it is to counteract the arms held by the state.
Both are valid,

The first one is nowhere close to "valid".


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; the People are the Militia; Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It's always a hoot to see someone quote a post and then reveal he hasn't even read it.

What is even more of a hoot, is the appeals to ignorance of the law.

Inorance of the law?

It has been to the SCOTUS - the second amendment does, in fact, protect the INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of any connection with militia, to bear arms.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

 

[BreezeWood]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

 

[danielpalos]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

Persons considered specifically unconnected with militia service, well regulated, are subject to the Police Power of a State regarding deadly weapons.

 

[emilynghiem]

What harm is there in me owning a Thomas Sub machine gun? Or even a tank?

It's not an issue for public concern except when a lot of people organize guns and tanks collectively.
With one individual who cares. But if you are talking about organizing arms, then people start to care.

What? Who are you talking about? Who exactly are your worried about? You worried about militias?

I'm saying what makes people nervous about anyone owning tanks, AK47 and automatic rifles, etc. is
when these are in "large numbers." So that's when they start screaming against "rights" to buy and bear arms.

What makes people calm down about guns is when they know the owners are as responsible
and well-trained as Police and Military who are professional about law enforcement. If more
citizens were like that, there would not be an issue with fear of criminals abusing the gun laws.
If we do a better job of screening out criminally and mentally ill threats to society, there won't
be such a hub-bub over gun laws. The focus would be on maintaining law, order and security first.
Any policy or use of guns to achieve that goal of safety and security would follow second.
We just have to meet in agreement on the goal, and these issues will no longer be such a hot issue!

I understand your point bu the average Citizen can't be in anyway as well trained as someone who devotes their life to it.

Then you are ignorant of what actually happens in those professions.

As an active duty military member I have no qualms about telling you that the vast majority of armed citizens I have ever met are FAR better trained and FAR more competent with their weapons than the vast majority of military members.

You think that the military actually trains their people in the proper use of their weapon and that really is not the case. Qualification is not very often and the metrics you need to achieve are pathetic. This does not, of course, apply to the more specialized segments of the armed forces (and I imagine the police) but you are talking about a very select few in that case. The vast majority of military weapons are in the hands of young soldiers that barely know how to handle them.

Dear FA_Q2
I'm all for making sure there is proper training and screening in the military also.
Look at Fort Hood. Don't tell me that psychiatrist who did that couldn't have been screened out.

The veteran who killed Chris Kyle had well known issues as a danger to himself and others.
Nobody had any business trying to do therapy with that guy letting him use weapons in the state he was in.

There needs to be more disciplined training and management all around.
Plenty of military personnel are fighting against abuses within their own ranks and policies they are under now.

All that can be improved if we make it the goal of putting safety, security and effectiveness first
before politics. You don't create a good image by hiding all the problems to put up a front.

We need REAL security by real effective training in all areas of law enforcement, conflict resolution,
safe intervention, not just the use of arms.

Still, one thing I will say, is that the people I know who have taken a Constitutional Oath
tend to approach govt and law enforcement as a SHARED responsibility, where they have a vested interest.

Whatever it takes to cultivate that sense of DIRECT connection with govt, I find that makes all the difference in whether people act responsibly and respond to grievances instead of "passing the buck to someone else"

 

[emilynghiem]

I have found two different interpretations I think are both correct if people are allowed to follow their own
1. One is the interpretation that the guns only applies to "well regulated MILITIAS" and specifically STATE militias or GOVT as the people. so it is about arming the official military, police, and other security personnel.
2. The other interpretation is that the PEOPLE refers to CITIZENS and it is to counteract the arms held by the state.
Both are valid,

The first one is nowhere close to "valid".

Dear Little-Acorn
This is like telling an Atheist their secular beliefs that exclude a personal God are not valid.
To that person, that is their framework. Their perspective is valid for them, and they frame
everything they look at through that lens, that doesn't depend on a personified creator.

So to respect that person's beliefs, and to INCLUDE that person Constitutionally
without Discriminating against them just because they don't believe in God or
don't believe in the history behind the Constitution or Natural Laws that others believe in,
it becomes LEGALLY NECESSARY to accommodate these OTHER beliefs.

It is THEIR valid starting point, for THEM.

It just can't be IMPOSED by govt or laws any more than we can impose
our beliefs about God or Natural laws on THEM without their free choice to accept,
because our views are still "FAITH BASED" from THEIR perspective.

Thus they require FREE CHOICE to adopt and cannot be forced by law or govt
against the beliefs of other people. And the Tradeoff Little-Acorn
is neither can they impose their beliefs on us. Thus we are equal under the law.

If we want our beliefs respected and not treaded upon,
it only makes sense that we enforce the same respect for others and their beliefs we don't agree with either. If we can prove otherwise, then we can offer change by FREE CHOICE. But NOT forcing people to compromise their beliefs by force of govt, if we don't want that either!!!

Otherwise, if we force beliefs on others by political coercion, how can we argue to defend our beliefs from such abuses of govt authority when this is done to us?

 

[danielpalos]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

 

[FA_Q2]

The first one is nowhere close to "valid".


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; the People are the Militia; Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It's always a hoot to see someone quote a post and then reveal he hasn't even read it.

What is even more of a hoot, is the appeals to ignorance of the law.

Inorance of the law?

It has been to the SCOTUS - the second amendment does, in fact, protect the INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of any connection with militia, to bear arms.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

?

No, it is not. It is an appeal to an expert in language and usage.

That is irrelevant anyway - YOU are charging that the second amendment (if i read your posts correctly) codifies a right connected with the militia when the SCOTUS has affirmed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That is no longer a legal question - it is settled legal law.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; the People are the Militia; Only well regulated Militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

It's always a hoot to see someone quote a post and then reveal he hasn't even read it.

What is even more of a hoot, is the appeals to ignorance of the law.

Inorance of the law?

It has been to the SCOTUS - the second amendment does, in fact, protect the INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of any connection with militia, to bear arms.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

?

No, it is not. It is an appeal to an expert in language and usage.

That is irrelevant anyway - YOU are charging that the second amendment (if i read your posts correctly) codifies a right connected with the militia when the SCOTUS has affirmed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That is no longer a legal question - it is settled legal law.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

Can you cite where in paragraph (2) of that very same holding, upholds paragraph (1)?

 

[FA_Q2]

It's always a hoot to see someone quote a post and then reveal he hasn't even read it.

What is even more of a hoot, is the appeals to ignorance of the law.

Inorance of the law?

It has been to the SCOTUS - the second amendment does, in fact, protect the INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of any connection with militia, to bear arms.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

?

No, it is not. It is an appeal to an expert in language and usage.

That is irrelevant anyway - YOU are charging that the second amendment (if i read your posts correctly) codifies a right connected with the militia when the SCOTUS has affirmed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That is no longer a legal question - it is settled legal law.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

Can you cite where in paragraph (2) of that very same holding, upholds paragraph (1)?

Your are going to have to cite specifically what paragraph you are referring to or I cant show anything. There is no 'first paragraph' as court findings are generally not written like a book.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Of note:
"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."


"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16"

The right is not dependent upon connection to any militia - the entire opinion of the court states that over and over again.

 

[danielpalos]

What is even more of a hoot, is the appeals to ignorance of the law.

Inorance of the law?

It has been to the SCOTUS - the second amendment does, in fact, protect the INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of any connection with militia, to bear arms.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

?

No, it is not. It is an appeal to an expert in language and usage.

That is irrelevant anyway - YOU are charging that the second amendment (if i read your posts correctly) codifies a right connected with the militia when the SCOTUS has affirmed that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That is no longer a legal question - it is settled legal law.

Yes, paragraph (1) of DC v Heller is an appeal to ignorance of the law that is corrected by paragraph (2).

Can you cite where in paragraph (2) of that very same holding, upholds paragraph (1)?

Your are going to have to cite specifically what paragraph you are referring to or I cant show anything. There is no 'first paragraph' as court findings are generally not written like a book.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Of note:
"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause."


"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16"

The right is not dependent upon connection to any militia - the entire opinion of the court states that over and over again.

Nothing but diversion for your allegedly, "gospel Truth" Cause?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[Little-Acorn]

This is like telling an Atheist their secular beliefs that exclude a personal God are not valid.

There is a Constitutional passage saying that the right to not have a personal God, is invalid?

What I said is not a bit like that.

There is certainly a Constitutional passage saying that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And "interpreting" it to mean it only applies to people in military service, is as invalid as it gets. It's not a matter of opinion. As the article I quoted demonstrates, the passage says exactly that in no uncertain terms. And people who believe it says something else, hold an invalid belief. They are simply wrong.

 

[danielpalos]

This is like telling an Atheist their secular beliefs that exclude a personal God are not valid.

There is a Constitutional passage saying that the right to not have a personal God, is invalid?

What I said is not a bit like that.

There is certainly a Constitutional passage saying that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.

And "interpreting" it to mean it only applies to people in military service, is as invalid as it gets. It's not a matter of opinion. As the article I quoted demonstrates, the passage says exactly that in no uncertain terms. And people who believe it says something else, hold an invalid belief. They are simply wrong.

You are appealing to ignorance when claiming our Second Amendment Only applies to People in military service; it doesn't. It says the Militia of the People who are well regulated may not be Infringed should they have to be called out to do their Job.

 

[M14 Shooter]

danielpalos will only lie to you. No need to pay him any heed.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the reading comprehension challenged Right does that; while trying to convince us they are for the "gospel Truth".

 

[BreezeWood]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

 

[danielpalos]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

.

dan: No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

... well regulated militias of the People


just curious as to who you are referring to ^ as non in this country exist ( civilian militia ), thankfully and if so why that would not be included as a " strict military exclusion " per the Amendment ? -

from national Arms regulation per any and all uses being the same irregardless the status of any person or organization other than military / militia.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

danielpalos: That would be a Class of Arms meant for Individuals ...

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.

nothing in the amendment precludes the defining by law as the Arms made available for the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed " as being - bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

Blueslegend: Do you know what kind of nasty ass dangerous weapons they had in the 1700's when the 2nd amendment was written? If we had those weapons today gun grabbers would freak out and start foaming at the mouth.

let them foam ...

and so, the technology / performance capability as a comparable need is a part of the amendment per regulation and not for its availability.

.

This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

.

dan: This is just simpler for public policy purposes: a Class of Arms meant for Individuals of the People who are considered not specifically connected with militia service, well regulated.

bolt or lever action, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine


not a "class" of Arms, but the only Arms available to all people including law enforcement with only a strict military exclusion - is Constitutional.

.

No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

.

dan: No, it won't simply because well regulated militias of the People (who are the militia) enjoy literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment; unlike gun lovers without a Constitutional clue or a Constitutional Cause.

... well regulated militias of the People


just curious as to who you are referring to ^ as non in this country exist ( civilian militia ), thankfully and if so why that would not be included as a " strict military exclusion " per the Amendment ? -

from national Arms regulation per any and all uses being the same irregardless the status of any person or organization other than military / militia.

He's lying to you. Its all he does.