Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll tackle this one first as it's a relatively simple answer.Sure.
So long as those regulations do not infringe of the exercise of the right to keep an bear arms.
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions are not reasonable - indeed, they are, inherently, infringements,.I do not think we are far apart on this point. However, I would qualify that reasonable regulations not be excluded.
I do agree but insist that is also does not confer rights beyond the purpose for which the 2ndA was written: to insure the provision for a militia in a time when there was no provision for a standing army. I'll suggest that had there been a standing army, the 2ndA may have never been written.As you know, the prefatory clause does not in anyway create a restriction on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the people.
What you wrote seems to suggest that the founders were incapable of writing what the gun lobby wishes there to be: a carte blank right to bear any form of arms, at any place and time each individual chooses.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.
Please demonsttate this to be unsound.
The 2nd Amendment does no confer any rights, period.I do agree but insist that is also does not confer rights beyond the purpose for which the 2ndA was written: to insure the provision for a militia in a time when there was no provision for a standing army
The US Army has been in continuous service since 1775, and the power to raise armies was given to Congress by the Constitution.I'll suggest that had there been a standing army, the 2ndA may have never been written.
Unnecessary and ineffective regulations are, inherently unreasonable - and thus, infringements.But again, I do not contend that the aforementioned means that there is no right to possess and bear arms. I believe that there is a natural right to possess and bear. I just don't believe that said right is carte blank, that "we the people" do not also possess a right to reasonable regulation. The devil will be in the detail.
-I- didn't write itWhat you wrote seems to suggest that the founders were incapable of writing...
No needless insult but the definitions of "unnecessary and ineffective" are subject to the same whim of definition to be found in the ever-popular legal term of reasonable.Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions are not reasonable - indeed, they are, inherently, infringements,.
But, good on you to agree that the right to keep and bear arms may be regulated so long as those regulations do not infringe of the exercise of same.
That's why there must be a demonstration, rather than simply a statement of opinion, of necessity and efficacy for a regulation to not quality as an infringement.No needless insult but the definitions of "unnecessary and ineffective" are subject to the same whim of definition...
The Second Amendment was written to insure the arming of a militia, period. It does not address the individual rights on which you and I principally seem to agree exist.The 2nd Amendment does no confer any rights, period.
And you can "insist" all you want - it does not change the fact the right to keep and bear arms, as protected ny the 2nd extnds to weapons anduuses not realted to the militia.
The US Army has been in continous service since 1775.
Unnecessary anf ineffective regulartuions are, inheteently unreasonable - and thus, infringements.
-I- didn't write it
And I dont see your demonstration as ot how it is unsound.
I have no problem with that whatsoever.That's why there must be a demonstration, rather than simply a statement of opinion, of necessity and efficacy for a regulation to not quality as an infringement.
It does.The Second Amendment was written to insure the arming of a militia, period. It does not address the individual rights...
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of -any- right are unreasonable.Regardless, regulations, or any other part of the problem, are properly addressed by simply dismissing them as inherently unreasonable.
And thus, the threshold for "reasonable" restrictions.I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Who said the 2ndA was a syllogism?Once again, you prove ignorance. The 2nd Amendment is not a syllogism. A syllogism requires two or more logical premises that, when combined, yield a result or conclusion that is true every time the premises are met - a syllogism requires a total of at least 3 parts and that is the first clue that the 2nd Amendment is not a syllogism; it is the 10th clue that you're an idiot.
No, it's not a compound sentence. It's a complex sentence. Quick, do a google and hurriedly run back in here with a half baked understanding of simple, complex, compound, and complex-compound.The 2nd Amendment is simply a compound sentence. You'll likely not find a single suggestion by any intelligent constitutional scholar suggesting that it is a syllogism; I certainly was not able to.
You ask like this has not been repeatedly and soundly addressed.Why then did the founders place said clause in their sentence? Are you suggesting that they were idiots?
What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear? Do the terms individual right and the right of the people automatically refer to the same thing? Does the 2ndA specifically say anything about individual rights, about anything outside of the necessity to a militia?It does.
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.
Not the right of the people to be in the militia
Not the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the militia.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of -any- right are unreasonable.
They inherently constitute infringements.
Shall not be infringed.
Excuse me but I addressed this in post #563.You ask like this has not been repeatedly and soundly addressed.
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.
Please demonstrate this to be unsound.
Did you notice how you did not meaningfully address what I said?What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear?
Excuse you - nowhere in that post did you demonstrate what I posted to be unsound - so, while you might have replied, you did not meaningfully address what I said.Excuse me but I addressed this in post #563.
What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear?
OMG, I've broken the timing rule as set down by a gutless pussy.Favorite punching-down bag, that is.
My post you responded to was from 2 days ago.
If you didn't crave the attention, you would let it go, kid.
I accept your opinion for what it is, an opinion.Excuse you - nowhere in that post did you demonstrate what I posted to be unsound - so, while you might have replied, you did not meaningfully address what I said.
I accept your concession, that you have no meaningful response to what I said.I accept your opinion for what it is, an opinion.
Your statement, above, is a lie.Meanwhile, the 2ndA does not address individual rights.
