sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
I meant to reply to the person you replied too, clicked on your reply and didn’t notice. That’s why I answered the question of the “why” behind the prefatory clause. I got a good laugh out of your response though.The why, in why CITIZENS militias were necessary is because a free state does not exist when the state has the monopoly of force. The constitution is based on natural law. God/nature gives us the ability of free will, therefore governments function is to secure freedom. God/nature gives us the ability to speak=free speech. God/nature gives us the ability to defend ourselves from whatever threats come our way, no matter what uniform they have on=second amendment. If the second amendment was just about the government providing “security” for the people, they would’ve went with the standing army over the militia. This is because militias suck against standing armies. There was a debate at the time whether or not to have a standing army, but never was it aimed to replace militias because the founders universally agreed that citizens needed to be armed in case the government got out of hand. Remember the people have the right to abolish the government that fails to uphold their liberties. Considering it’s pretty rare for people in power to just relinquish that power without a fight should be a pretty clear indication of the “why” behind the prefatory clause. To which we get the next clause stating therefore “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s not immature silliness, it’s simply not being so naive to think “well the government isn’t full blown turning on me now, therefore they’ll never do so in the future.”A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done. For example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution is a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause. The first part of the amendment states ''a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the condition of a free state.'' This is the prefatory clause. The second part of the amendment states ''the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' This is the operative clause.It doesn't gt any clearer than
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."
Look up "prefatory clause", assuming it doesn't have too many syllables for you to handle.
WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE. Without the "why" the rest makes no sense
Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.
I won't even bother addressing your absurd notion that "militia" meant to people in the 18th century what it means to modern-day illiterates like you, because your post has already put me dangerously close to my daily quota of immature silliness.
Again, we’re not trying to decode ancient Sumarian hieroglyphs here, the intentions behind the second amendment were very clear. We have a shit ton of first hand accounts on the matter. If you don’t like the second amendment, repeal it, instead of trying to mentally squeeze a square peg in a round hole. It comes off as whiny.
Hey, twat-burger. Maybe the next time you want to get off on a kneejerk rant at someone for "If you don't like the second amendment, repeal it", you could take two seconds, pretend to have a brain, and direct your incoherent, nasty bullshit at someone who ACTUALLY dislikes the Second Amendment. I would care a lot more that you think my post "comes off as whiny" if YOUR post didn't come off as though you're an illiterate dipshit.
Fuck you, moron. Learn to read.