So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Dan Daly]

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

No, you have ignored repeated attempts to explain it to you...are those blinders you are wearing partisan, or just something you picked up in the Ignorant section of Walmart?

 

[Pogo]

Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.

Make firearms a mandatory class in school.

What if you're simply not interested in blood guts killing violence intimidation loud noises aggression via remote control destruction death firearms?

The above observation once again reiterates the underlying dynamic, that being:

The cultural firearm fetish that drives all this madness is, reduced to its base, a masculinity problem.

There you go nutters -- another fact to run away from, stick one's head in the sand and avoid.
Carry on.

When one resorts to spewing nonsense such as this, it is obvious that they have surrendered the discussion because they have no logical, factual or reasonable rebuttal. You can't dazzle us with brilliance, so it's no surprise you must attempt to baffle us with emotional, illogical bulltwinkle.

Awright then, pop quiz: name all the mass shooters you can think of who were female.



This is the elephant in the room:

Many school shooters, one common factor: a warped view of masculinity

Mass Killings in the US: Masculinity, Masculinity, Masculinity

America's White Masculinity Complex and the Myth of the "Senseless" Mass Shooting

Why is it Men Who Commit Mass Shootings?

Mass shootings --- which is after all the topic here --- are power trips. There's no escaping that. And at this point I'm rehashing what I already laid down at the beginning of this thread, where it was ignored, and here I've reposted links from another thread, where they were also ignored.

I'll just keep walking the elephant around the room until you blind men figure it out.

 

[Pogo]

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

No, you have ignored repeated attempts to explain it to you...are those blinders you are wearing partisan, or just something you picked up in the Ignorant section of Walmart?

aaaand chalk up yet one MORE failure to address the question. This time with a trip to Mal-Wart.

Plus ça change....

 

[LOki]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

Ah good, the old "preforatory" lawyeristic song and dance again. Unfortunately it still fails for the same reason it always did, and the same reason I already articulated. And you articulated it too, right here:

"which is why..."

As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself. A constitution is a declaratory statement -- "here's the way it will go down"---- period. Any reasoning for including this or excluding that is done in committees before said constitution is finalized and agreed on.

Basically a constitution says, "here's what the rules are". What it does not say is "here's WHY the rules are what they are". It doesn't need to, nor is that its function, nor is it the place for the base of reasoning.

And you'll notice, which is why I also brought up the question that still stands untouched --- nowhere else does any Amendment attempt to justify or explain itself. Which is as it should be, explanation is not the function here.

Or to take your post the other way:

"the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia"."
​

--- again, philosophies of what the "nature of a free State" is, is not the domain of a constitution. That's the realm of philosophy books.

This is the same flaw just described above -- purportedly explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. But that -- the interpretation that it's an explanation -- still does not follow. There's no reason to put it in there as such, nor does such exist anywhere else. Constitutions don't do that --- they simply declare how things will work. As every single one of the other Amendments do.


In short, this phrase is an anomaly, the intent of which cannot be explained except by those who wrote it, who are all long gone. It's a verbal train wreck, even if we continue to ignore the commas.

I'm afraid this "preforatory" tactic is a latter-day lawyerist attempt to excuse away and dismiss ("nothing to see here, move along") what is unavoidably problematic language. It's reaching for a definition that does not exist and trying to dress it up in a lawyerly-looking term. But as articulated above -- it simply doesn't work logically. It's a non sequitur. It should never have been approved as worded, because what it means cannot be determined.

Your premise: "As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself.", is wrong based upon the verifiable facts of reality.

The preamble--the "why"--to the Bill of Rights is obviously and incontestably part of the U.S. Constitution. There's really no point in debating that, or the fact that it describes the "why" for the amendments.

Yet the end game remains the same. The "why" in the preamble informs us that the dependent, subordinate, prefatory clause of the 2nd is not a rationale or reason for the amendment; it cannot be construed to be any constraint upon the right articulated by the independent, operative clause of the amendment; it is an emphasis upon the scope of "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

Traditionally, unless armed by the governing sovereign, folks--the militia, as it was--came to the field with ad-hoc armament. Granpaw's match-lock, hunting knives, Pitchforks, and such. For well documented reasons, the potentates of the period prohibited the commoners from possessing weaponry in parity with the military.

The 2nd Amendment does away with all that.

The prefatory clause informs the reader that the arms in question indeed encompasses even those possessed by the national military soldier.

 

[candycorn]

The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.

Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

How about first, I address your possibly-deliberate and possibly-due-to-being-a-fucking-moron misquote of what I said, because as I have to keep reminding you, you will NOT be imposing your parameters on the debate?

The phrase about militia - which, to the Founding Fathers, would have been simply the citizens of an area - exists to articulate a reason for firearms that is not already covered in other places, either explicitly or implicitly. That clause is completely independent of the one following. Grammatically, it in no way modifies the second clause. There is no number of times you are going to demand, "why is it there?! Doesn't it mean what I want it to mean?!" that that is going to change.

This is the last time I'm saying it. You have your answer. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Total cop out. Totally expected.

Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.

But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

I own you.

Oh, I didn't realize you thought you had somehow magically gained the power to set debate parameters that I have repeatedly told you you DON'T have, because I don't answer to you, and then decreed that I was required to answer in some manner that you don't happen to see as "how a gun nut would".

There is no "copout" in recognizing that someone is so sunk in their delusional fantasies of being queen of the universe that they're not worth talking to, especially when talking to them requires saying the same thing over and over because they pretend it didn't happen.

BTW, women can't be emasculated, dumbtwat.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

So in other words, you can't refute what I cited, so now you want to dream nice dreams of what could be if your totalitarian heroes take power. Nice.

The problem isn't law-abiding citizens...yet that's all the Hillarys of the world can come up with...you would rather punish good folks to cover up your impotence at addressing the root cause...the criminals.

Your citings are fine. Never said they were not. However they are not parts of the Constitution. And as we have seen previous decisions can be overturned.

As for addressing the "root cause", my punishment for criminals is much harsher than most of the gun nuts. You're simply too lazy to seek it out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your citings are fine. Never said they were not. However they are not parts of the Constitution.

Nowhere does the Constitution say that the militia and "the people" are the same group of people.

 

[Dan Daly]

The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were , to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.

Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

How about first, I address your possibly-deliberate and possibly-due-to-being-a-fucking-moron misquote of what I said, because as I have to keep reminding you, you will NOT be imposing your parameters on the debate?

The phrase about militia - which, to the Founding Fathers, would have been simply the citizens of an area - exists to articulate a reason for firearms that is not already covered in other places, either explicitly or implicitly. That clause is completely independent of the one following. Grammatically, it in no way modifies the second clause. There is no number of times you are going to demand, "why is it there?! Doesn't it mean what I want it to mean?!" that that is going to change.

This is the last time I'm saying it. You have your answer. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Total cop out. Totally expected.

Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.

But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

I own you.

Oh, I didn't realize you thought you had somehow magically gained the power to set debate parameters that I have repeatedly told you you DON'T have, because I don't answer to you, and then decreed that I was required to answer in some manner that you don't happen to see as "how a gun nut would".

There is no "copout" in recognizing that someone is so sunk in their delusional fantasies of being queen of the universe that they're not worth talking to, especially when talking to them requires saying the same thing over and over because they pretend it didn't happen.

BTW, women can't be emasculated, dumbtwat.

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

So in other words, you can't refute what I cited, so now you want to dream nice dreams of what could be if your totalitarian heroes take power. Nice.

The problem isn't law-abiding citizens...yet that's all the Hillarys of the world can come up with...you would rather punish good folks to cover up your impotence at addressing the root cause...the criminals.

Your citings are fine. Never said they were not. However they are not parts of the Constitution. And as we have seen previous decisions can be overturned.

As for addressing the "root cause", my punishment for criminals is much harsher than most of the gun nuts. You're simply too lazy to seek it out.

Uh, sunshine, you were the one trying to tell us that our correct interpretations...backed by legal precedent, are incorrect...you are the one moving the goal post to what might, maybe happen when if your totalitarian heroes are elected/appointed once you got schooled. Now PGFY like a good little wannabe tyrant.

 

[candycorn]

Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

As stated, just like the 9/11 Truthers when you keep asking them to explain things, they get crazier and crazier as they go on. First they refused to address why the word Militia was there. Then once they did that, they tried to act like the words "well regulated militia" were 3 independent words and well didn't describe "regulated" and neither had anything to do with the word militia. As crazy as it sounded, then they doubled down on the framers, in this one amendment, the framers just mentioned a subset to mention it.

Indeed. A constitution is a framework for the entire government. It's expected to be around for the Duration, for countless generations down the road. As such you don't bloat it up with a lot of background noise. Actually you don't bloat it up with ANY background noise -- you simply declare "here's our structure" -- period. The head-in-the-sanders would have us believe that here in the Second Amendment --- and ONLY here in the Second Amendment --- it suddenly became necessary to explain oneself. And then starting with the Third Amendment, it was no longer necessary.

Desperate reach to avoid the reality.

Well, that's just it. One legal scholar put it like so; the high court measures the climate; not the temperature on any given day. The Roberts court seems to be willing to try to make the nation better; not merely hand down rulings that no longer fit.

 

[Dan Daly]

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

No, you have ignored repeated attempts to explain it to you...are those blinders you are wearing partisan, or just something you picked up in the Ignorant section of Walmart?

aaaand chalk up yet one MORE failure to address the question. This time with a trip to Mal-Wart.

Plus ça change....

I'm sorry, but I am not a miracle worker...I cannot make you able to read and comprehend what you either can't, or simply refuse to read and comprehend. I would suggest the fail is staring back at you in your mirror. But I think you know that...which is why you must resort to bluff and bluster and bulltwinkle.

 

[Pogo]

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

No, you have ignored repeated attempts to explain it to you...are those blinders you are wearing partisan, or just something you picked up in the Ignorant section of Walmart?

aaaand chalk up yet one MORE failure to address the question. This time with a trip to Mal-Wart.

Plus ça change....

I'm sorry, but I am not a miracle worker...I cannot make you able to read and comprehend what you either can't, or simply refuse to read and comprehend. I would suggest the fail is staring back at you in your mirror. But I think you know that...which is why you must resort to bluff and bluster and bulltwinkle.

Likewise I cannot read what has never been posted. That's why I pose questions that cannot be answered -- because the silence itself is eloquent.

 

[candycorn]

Okay, finally, we're getting somewhere. See what happens when you answer a question...

Now, you said that Militia is there to allow "The People" (aka individual citizens) should have reason to keep and bear arms. Great.

Now, please tell us why the words "well-regulated Militia" are there. Wouldn't that indicate that the intent of the framers was that if they wanted the people to keep and bear arms (as you theorize), that those people would have to be part of a "well-regulated" militia.

Again, the words in the 2nd Amendment are there for a reason.

Let's hear your spin.

How about first, I address your possibly-deliberate and possibly-due-to-being-a-fucking-moron misquote of what I said, because as I have to keep reminding you, you will NOT be imposing your parameters on the debate?

The phrase about militia - which, to the Founding Fathers, would have been simply the citizens of an area - exists to articulate a reason for firearms that is not already covered in other places, either explicitly or implicitly. That clause is completely independent of the one following. Grammatically, it in no way modifies the second clause. There is no number of times you are going to demand, "why is it there?! Doesn't it mean what I want it to mean?!" that that is going to change.

This is the last time I'm saying it. You have your answer. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Total cop out. Totally expected.

Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.

But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.

I own you.

Oh, I didn't realize you thought you had somehow magically gained the power to set debate parameters that I have repeatedly told you you DON'T have, because I don't answer to you, and then decreed that I was required to answer in some manner that you don't happen to see as "how a gun nut would".

There is no "copout" in recognizing that someone is so sunk in their delusional fantasies of being queen of the universe that they're not worth talking to, especially when talking to them requires saying the same thing over and over because they pretend it didn't happen.

BTW, women can't be emasculated, dumbtwat.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

So in other words, you can't refute what I cited, so now you want to dream nice dreams of what could be if your totalitarian heroes take power. Nice.

The problem isn't law-abiding citizens...yet that's all the Hillarys of the world can come up with...you would rather punish good folks to cover up your impotence at addressing the root cause...the criminals.

Your citings are fine. Never said they were not. However they are not parts of the Constitution. And as we have seen previous decisions can be overturned.

As for addressing the "root cause", my punishment for criminals is much harsher than most of the gun nuts. You're simply too lazy to seek it out.

Uh, sunshine, you were the one trying to tell us that our correct interpretations...backed by legal precedent, are incorrect...you are the one moving the goal post to what might, maybe happen when if your totalitarian heroes are elected/appointed once you got schooled. Now PGFY like a good little wannabe tyrant.

The goalposts are where they always have been. A new set of justices appointed by a center-left POTUS like Clinton will be can decide if the ball crosses the goal-line to strengthen anti-gun laws or not.

Sounds like Ive hit a never. Good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, that's just it. One legal scholar put it like so; the high court measures the climate; not the temperature on any given day.

Doing that, it will uphold Heller, every time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The goalposts are where they always have been

They are?
Funny, then, how you require others to cite where the constitution states their assertion, but refuse to accept the necessity of you to do so as well. .

Right of the people.
Not the militia
Not the people in the militia
The people.

 

[Pogo]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

Ah good, the old "preforatory" lawyeristic song and dance again. Unfortunately it still fails for the same reason it always did, and the same reason I already articulated. And you articulated it too, right here:

"which is why..."

As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself. A constitution is a declaratory statement -- "here's the way it will go down"---- period. Any reasoning for including this or excluding that is done in committees before said constitution is finalized and agreed on.

Basically a constitution says, "here's what the rules are". What it does not say is "here's WHY the rules are what they are". It doesn't need to, nor is that its function, nor is it the place for the base of reasoning.

And you'll notice, which is why I also brought up the question that still stands untouched --- nowhere else does any Amendment attempt to justify or explain itself. Which is as it should be, explanation is not the function here.

Or to take your post the other way:

"the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia"."
​

--- again, philosophies of what the "nature of a free State" is, is not the domain of a constitution. That's the realm of philosophy books.

This is the same flaw just described above -- purportedly explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. But that -- the interpretation that it's an explanation -- still does not follow. There's no reason to put it in there as such, nor does such exist anywhere else. Constitutions don't do that --- they simply declare how things will work. As every single one of the other Amendments do.


In short, this phrase is an anomaly, the intent of which cannot be explained except by those who wrote it, who are all long gone. It's a verbal train wreck, even if we continue to ignore the commas.

I'm afraid this "preforatory" tactic is a latter-day lawyerist attempt to excuse away and dismiss ("nothing to see here, move along") what is unavoidably problematic language. It's reaching for a definition that does not exist and trying to dress it up in a lawyerly-looking term. But as articulated above -- it simply doesn't work logically. It's a non sequitur. It should never have been approved as worded, because what it means cannot be determined.

Your premise: "As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself.", is wrong based upon the verifiable facts of reality.

The preamble--the "why"--to the Bill of Rights is obviously and incontestably part of the U.S. Constitution. There's really no point in debating that, or the fact that it describes the "why" for the amendments.

The Preamble is not where we are. That a Preamble should introduce and set up the purpose of the document to follow, is logical. Once that introduction is done, it's on to the nuts and bolts --- the purpose for which the document exists -- at which point explanation of each point is neither necessary nor warranted.

The Preamble does not purport to explain the purpose of any particular Article -- it explains the purpose of the document.

Yet the end game remains the same. The "why" in the preamble informs us that the dependent, subordinate, prefatory clause of the 2nd is not a rationale or reason for the amendment; it cannot be construed to be any constraint upon the right articulated by the independent, operative clause of the amendment; it is an emphasis upon the scope of "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

So you're saying the phrase is a dependent clause.

That then means IF a well regulated militia is at some point deemed NOT necessary the security of a free State, then the following language no longer applies. That's interesting. Hadn't thought of that. Brings up some interesting musings, starting with: WHO deems it necessary or no-longer-necessary? And HOW do they get this deeming done?

Gets murkier and murkier.

"Emphasis upon the scope of" is, to sound like a broken record, unnecessary; "shall not" is already an absolute. It's like saying "free gift" -- if a gift isn't free... it isn't a gift.

And again, to repeat a still-uncontested point ..... nowhere else in the Constitution does an Article or Amendment find any need for "emphasis" or "scope" --- or reasonings, justifications, etc etc. No such qualification is necessary in a constitution. Why would it be suddenly necessary here, and only necessary here?

Traditionally, unless armed by the governing sovereign, folks--the militia, as it was--came to the field with ad-hoc armament. Granpaw's match-lock, hunting knives, Pitchforks, and such. For well documented reasons, the potentates of the period prohibited the commoners from possessing weaponry in parity with the military.

The 2nd Amendment does away with all that.

The prefatory clause informs the reader that the arms in question indeed encompasses even those possessed by the national military soldier.

I don't see how. It doesn't specify any particular degree of arms at all.

"Arms" is unequivocal. As it sits unqualified, I have the right to own a nuclear bomb, assuming I can afford one. That's what the language says. Of course, at the time of its composition, not even the Minié ball had been invented, let alone planes, rockets and nuclear physics, but that's a whole 'nother question, and a speculative one.

I'm thanking your post for elevating the discourse above the level of "bulltwinkle".

We should note however, interesting as this linguistic tangent is, it's also off topic.

 

[Contumacious]

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?

(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.

Let's look at the facts

There is a criminal element amongst us

My wife and I are old and weak.

I have a tiny pecker.

We have a right to life and to defend the same

We are going to buy firearms . either from our neighborhood gun store while we can or from a Mexican Drug Cartel.

And there is nothing you low life son of bitch can do about it.


.

 

[candycorn]

2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?

(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)

Cars aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are.

so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.

Let's look at the facts

There is a criminal element amongst us

My wife and I are old and weak.

I have a tiny pecker.

We have a right to life and to defend the same

We are going to buy firearms . either from our neighborhood gun store while we can or from a Mexican Drug Cartel.

And there is nothing you low life son of bitch can do about it.


.

Gee, and all we've heard from the beginning of time is that the gun nuts are 100% law abiding citizens. I guess not.

 

[LOki]

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

Ah good, the old "preforatory" lawyeristic song and dance again. Unfortunately it still fails for the same reason it always did, and the same reason I already articulated. And you articulated it too, right here:

"which is why..."

As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself. A constitution is a declaratory statement -- "here's the way it will go down"---- period. Any reasoning for including this or excluding that is done in committees before said constitution is finalized and agreed on.

Basically a constitution says, "here's what the rules are". What it does not say is "here's WHY the rules are what they are". It doesn't need to, nor is that its function, nor is it the place for the base of reasoning.

And you'll notice, which is why I also brought up the question that still stands untouched --- nowhere else does any Amendment attempt to justify or explain itself. Which is as it should be, explanation is not the function here.

Or to take your post the other way:

"the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia"."
​

--- again, philosophies of what the "nature of a free State" is, is not the domain of a constitution. That's the realm of philosophy books.

This is the same flaw just described above -- purportedly explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. But that -- the interpretation that it's an explanation -- still does not follow. There's no reason to put it in there as such, nor does such exist anywhere else. Constitutions don't do that --- they simply declare how things will work. As every single one of the other Amendments do.


In short, this phrase is an anomaly, the intent of which cannot be explained except by those who wrote it, who are all long gone. It's a verbal train wreck, even if we continue to ignore the commas.

I'm afraid this "preforatory" tactic is a latter-day lawyerist attempt to excuse away and dismiss ("nothing to see here, move along") what is unavoidably problematic language. It's reaching for a definition that does not exist and trying to dress it up in a lawyerly-looking term. But as articulated above -- it simply doesn't work logically. It's a non sequitur. It should never have been approved as worded, because what it means cannot be determined.

Your premise: "As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself.", is wrong based upon the verifiable facts of reality.

The preamble--the "why"--to the Bill of Rights is obviously and incontestably part of the U.S. Constitution. There's really no point in debating that, or the fact that it describes the "why" for the amendments.

The Preamble is not where we are. That a Preamble should introduce and set up the purpose of the document to follow, is logical. Once that introduction is done, it's on to the nuts and bolts, the purpose for which the document exists -- at which point explanation of each point is neither necessary nor warranted.

The Preamble does not purport to explain the purpose of any particular Article -- it explains the purpose of the document.

Yet the end game remains the same. The "why" in the preamble informs us that the dependent, subordinate, prefatory clause of the 2nd is not a rationale or reason for the amendment; it cannot be construed to be any constraint upon the right articulated by the independent, operative clause of the amendment; it is an emphasis upon the scope of "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

So you're saying the phrase is a dependent clause.

It cannot be argued otherwise. Only someone with a deliberate misunderstanding of English would conclude that the prefatory clause is not dependent upon (not subordinate to) the main, independent, operative clause for meaning.

It would take a real idiot to make the assertion that the main, independent, operative clause is somehow dependent upon the subordinate clause in any way for meaning or validity.

That then means IF a well regulated militia is at some point deemed NOT necessary the security of a free State, then the following language no longer applies. That's interesting.

It sure is, considering the actual relationship between what is dependent, and what is depended upon.

Of course, logic dictates that you're entirely wrong. For OBVIOUS reasons.

Hadn't thought of that.

You're excused. You're obviously terribly bad at thinking. No one should expect you to really start now.

"Emphasis upon the scope of" is, to sound like a broken record, unnecessary; "shall not" is already an absolute. It's like saying "free gift" -- if a gift isn't free... it isn't a gift.

Traditionally, unless armed by the governing sovereign, folks--the militia, as it was--came to the field with ad-hoc armament. Granpaw's match-lock, hunting knives, Pitchforks, and such. For well documented reasons, the potentates of the period prohibited the commoners from possessing weaponry in parity with the military.

The 2nd Amendment does away with all that.

The prefatory clause informs the reader that the arms in question indeed encompasses even those possessed by the national military soldier.

I don't see how. It doesn't specify any particular degree of arms at all.

Sometime emphasis is required to overcome notions otherwise taken as granted.

You know, like: "OBVIOUSLY We don't mean to allow the peasantry the same arms as Our Royal soliders!"

 

[Pogo]

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

Ah good, the old "preforatory" lawyeristic song and dance again. Unfortunately it still fails for the same reason it always did, and the same reason I already articulated. And you articulated it too, right here:

"which is why..."

As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself. A constitution is a declaratory statement -- "here's the way it will go down"---- period. Any reasoning for including this or excluding that is done in committees before said constitution is finalized and agreed on.

Basically a constitution says, "here's what the rules are". What it does not say is "here's WHY the rules are what they are". It doesn't need to, nor is that its function, nor is it the place for the base of reasoning.

And you'll notice, which is why I also brought up the question that still stands untouched --- nowhere else does any Amendment attempt to justify or explain itself. Which is as it should be, explanation is not the function here.

Or to take your post the other way:

"the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia"."
​

--- again, philosophies of what the "nature of a free State" is, is not the domain of a constitution. That's the realm of philosophy books.

This is the same flaw just described above -- purportedly explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. But that -- the interpretation that it's an explanation -- still does not follow. There's no reason to put it in there as such, nor does such exist anywhere else. Constitutions don't do that --- they simply declare how things will work. As every single one of the other Amendments do.


In short, this phrase is an anomaly, the intent of which cannot be explained except by those who wrote it, who are all long gone. It's a verbal train wreck, even if we continue to ignore the commas.

I'm afraid this "preforatory" tactic is a latter-day lawyerist attempt to excuse away and dismiss ("nothing to see here, move along") what is unavoidably problematic language. It's reaching for a definition that does not exist and trying to dress it up in a lawyerly-looking term. But as articulated above -- it simply doesn't work logically. It's a non sequitur. It should never have been approved as worded, because what it means cannot be determined.

Your premise: "As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself.", is wrong based upon the verifiable facts of reality.

The preamble--the "why"--to the Bill of Rights is obviously and incontestably part of the U.S. Constitution. There's really no point in debating that, or the fact that it describes the "why" for the amendments.

The Preamble is not where we are. That a Preamble should introduce and set up the purpose of the document to follow, is logical. Once that introduction is done, it's on to the nuts and bolts, the purpose for which the document exists -- at which point explanation of each point is neither necessary nor warranted.

The Preamble does not purport to explain the purpose of any particular Article -- it explains the purpose of the document.

Yet the end game remains the same. The "why" in the preamble informs us that the dependent, subordinate, prefatory clause of the 2nd is not a rationale or reason for the amendment; it cannot be construed to be any constraint upon the right articulated by the independent, operative clause of the amendment; it is an emphasis upon the scope of "...Shall Not Be Infringed."

So you're saying the phrase is a dependent clause.

It cannot be argued otherwise. Only someone with a deliberate misunderstanding of English would conclude that the prefatory clause is not dependent upon (subordinate to) the main, independent, operative clause for meaning.

It would take a real idiot to make the assertion that the main, independent, operative clause is somehow dependent upon the subordinate clause in any way for meaning or validity.

That then means IF a well regulated militia is at some point deemed NOT necessary the security of a free State, then the following language no longer applies. That's interesting.

It sure is, considering the actual relationship between what is dependent, and what is depended upon.

Of course, logic dictates that you're entirely wrong. For OBVIOUS reasons.

Hadn't thought of that.

You're excused. You're obviously terribly bad at thinking. No one should expect you to really start now.

"Emphasis upon the scope of" is, to sound like a broken record, unnecessary; "shall not" is already an absolute. It's like saying "free gift" -- if a gift isn't free... it isn't a gift.

Traditionally, unless armed by the governing sovereign, folks--the militia, as it was--came to the field with ad-hoc armament. Granpaw's match-lock, hunting knives, Pitchforks, and such. For well documented reasons, the potentates of the period prohibited the commoners from possessing weaponry in parity with the military.

The 2nd Amendment does away with all that.

The prefatory clause informs the reader that the arms in question indeed encompasses even those possessed by the national military soldier.

I don't see how. It doesn't specify any particular degree of arms at all.

Sometime emphasis is required to overcome notions otherwise taken as granted.

You know, like: "OBVIOUSLY We don't mean to allow the peasantry the same arms as Our Royal soliders!"

So much for elevating discourse. Meltdown noted, thanks rescinded.
Question thus remains standing unmolested.

/tangent

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gee, and all we've heard from the beginning of time is that the gun nuts are 100% law abiding citizens. I guess not.

Oh look - a lie.

 

[JoeB131]

Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.

I have. they aren't. YOu pretty much have to catch them openly breaking the law to get any kind of action against them.

Then you need only provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."

I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.

Are you like the Norse God of Retards?

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia