The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

No it isn't. Furthermore, the term "tied to" is meaningless.

Yes it is, that's what the prefatory clause does, states the reason/purpose for the 2ndA. Did they not teach grammar where you went to school. Someone call Betsy and report this travesty.

Using twisted grammar to deny the presence of the prefatory clause is not simply an interpretation of the stated clause but an amendment to 2ndA.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yup, they stated the shit out of it.
Which in no way, shape or form limits the individual right.

What individual right? As stated where in the Constitution other than the 2ndA?

Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia. It's written in plain English and observes grammatical rules. Words and the manner in which they are ordered have meaning. If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

The Second Amendment was and remains a smashing success.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Maybe we need to be more flexible, eh comrade?

I am being flexible... you are welcomed to properly amend the US Constitution.

Btw, this comrade served in combat for the Red, White and Blue. One of my comrades in arms died from small arms fire and is buried at Ft Rosecrans, not two miles from where this commie managed to buy a home a hundred yards from the Pacific Ocean. SSgt John Harold Lxxxxxxx was the ATL on a LRP Team, a close personal friend, and unfortunately, not the only one to be lost. PFC Jim Rxxxxxx also fell to small arms. Sp4 Duane Bxxxx was standing too close when Charlie lobbed a rocket. When Sp5 John Rxxx lost both legs, I was an FNG and don't remember the name of the poor bastard who stepped on the mine. Sp4 Mike Pxxxxx was caught in a crossfire and took seven rounds in one leg. He lived but eventually had the leg amputated (nerve damage and persistant pain).

Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game? Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas? Ask them if they think a little inconvenience to gun ownership is worth saving just a couple of those kids.

Mind your manners and stick to the subject.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What individual right? As stated where in the Constitution other than the 2ndA?

Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia. It's written in plain English and observes grammatical rules. Words and the manner in which they are ordered have meaning. If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.

What individual right?

To keep and bear arms.

Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia.

It exists independent of a militia. Independent of a constitution.

It's written in plain English

It sure is.

If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.

If you wish it to depend on membership in a militia, you amend it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am being flexible... you are welcomed to properly amend the US Constitution.

Btw, this comrade served in combat for the Red, White and Blue. One of my comrades in arms died from small arms fire and is buried at Ft Rosecrans, not two miles from where this commie managed to buy a home a hundred yards from the Pacific Ocean. SSgt John Harold Lxxxxxxx was the ATL on a LRP Team, a close personal friend, and unfortunately, not the only one to be lost. PFC Jim Rxxxxxx also fell to small arms. Sp4 Duane Bxxxx was standing too close when Charlie lobbed a rocket. When Sp5 John Rxxx lost both legs, I was an FNG and don't remember the name of the poor bastard who stepped on the mine. Sp4 Mike Pxxxxx was caught in a crossfire and took seven rounds in one leg. He lived but eventually had the leg amputated (nerve damage and persistant pain).

Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game? Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas? Ask them if they think a little inconvenience to gun ownership is worth saving just a couple of those kids.

Mind your manners and stick to the subject.

Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game?

Nope.

Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas?

Why would I do that?

Mind your manners and stick to the subject.

Kiss my ass.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Do you think guns and this kind of shit is a game?

Nope.

Why not ask the parents of some those kids shot in Texas?

Why would I do that?

Mind your manners and stick to the subject.

Kiss my ass.

I'm going to break a personal rule, something I occasionally do. After all, I sat still for a shit load of your sophomoric nonsense without responding in kind.

Patriot, my ass. You're just a punk and a coward.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

What individual right?

To keep and bear arms.

Your individual right exist on the expressed need of a well-regulated militia.

It exists independent of a militia. Independent of a constitution.

It's written in plain English

It sure is.

If you wish a stand-alone right, roll up your sleeves and amend the Constitution.

If you wish it to depend on membership in a militia, you amend it.

Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.

Guns are your religion and we should take your instructions from God on faith. What a crock.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm going to break a personal rule, something I occasionally do. After all, I sat still for a shit load of your sophomoric nonsense without responding in kind.

Patriot, my ass. You're just a punk and a coward.

And yet, kiss my ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.

Guns are your religion and we should take your instructions from God on faith. What a crock.

Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.

Yup. Freedom, it's still a thing.

Guns are your religion

No, but rights do exist independent of the Constitution.
You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Those weren't given to you by the Constitution.
Same with guns.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And yet, kiss my ass.

The above is an incomplete sentence.

No wonder you have problems with a complex sentence. I'll bet you'd get dizzy with a complex-compound sentence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The above is an incomplete sentence.

No wonder you have problems with a complex sentence. I'll bet you'd get dizzy with a complex-compound sentence.

Less yapping, more kissing my ass.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Well, there we have it, what I bolded big.

Yup. Freedom, it's still a thing.

Guns are your religion

No, but rights do exist independent of the Constitution.
You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Those weren't given to you by the Constitution.
Same with guns.

So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights? Did blacks also have them? Sorry, but the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantee them (or at least try).

I think what you mean is that we should have always had certain rights.

However, I would add that with rights come responsibilities. Is it not reasonable that I should have the right to swing my arms through the air? But what if my fist come in contact with your mug? What if guns come into the hands of criminals, or the insane, via private party sales? Shall we not be responsible and end such lunacy - or at least make a reasonable effort to slow it down?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights? Did blacks also have them? Sorry, but the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantee them (or at least try).

I think what you mean is that we should have always had certain rights.

However, I would add that with rights come responsibilities. Is it not reasonable that I should have the right to swing my arms through the air? But what if my fist come in contact with your mug? What if guns come into the hands of criminals, or the insane, via private party sales? Shall we not be responsible and end such lunacy - or at least make a reasonable effort to slow it down?

So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights?

Yup.

 

[Leweman]

Democrats were a failure 200 years ago and should have been repealed on Thursday.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing provided above explains why you ignore the prefatory clause and its purpose in the 2ndA.

As you did not in any way even try to address the quote I provided, I shall accept your agreement that it is sound.

To your complaint above:
See below.
Please demonstrate the argument to be unsound.

3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and Operative Clause

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981). John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556. It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it is, that's what the prefatory clause does, states the reason/purpose for the 2ndA. Did they not teach grammar where you went to school. Someone call Betsy and report this travesty.

Using twisted grammar to deny the presence of the prefatory clause is not simply an interpretation of the stated clause but an amendment to 2ndA.

So what's the legal impact of clause? I'm dying to see it.

Where did I use "twisted grammar?" I don't deny that it exists. I simply point out that it has no legal impact. It's explanatory. It mandates no behavior.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We both know what it says but you choose to ignore the REASON for the 2ndA. It was given to accommodate a well-regulated militia.

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd belongs to the people.
Says so right in the text.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia,
The people.
Thus, any reference to "well regulated militia" is irrelevant when discussing who holds the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.

If it was granted purely as individual right...

The 2nd Amendment does not grant any rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's just say that I refuse to allow you to pick them.

I also refuse to ignore the opening clause in the 2ndA. Why do you ignore it?

QED.

 

[bripat9643]

So, by your reasoning we've always had all those rights? Did blacks also have them? Sorry, but the Constitution and the Rule of Law guarantee them (or at least try).

I think what you mean is that we should have always had certain rights.

However, I would add that with rights come responsibilities. Is it not reasonable that I should have the right to swing my arms through the air? But what if my fist come in contact with your mug? What if guns come into the hands of criminals, or the insane, via private party sales? Shall we not be responsible and end such lunacy - or at least make a reasonable effort to slow it down?

The arrest the criminals. What "lunacy?"