Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[RKMBrown]

I don't doubt your veracity, but I'm not sure about "author's intent," because until 2008, it was not a "wrong" reading of the second. And, even now, it is a minority view that still has academic support as to the Founder's intent. Still, it's wrong, and any student taking the AP test, which would entitle them to college credit w/o having to pay for a college course, woudl have gotten the question wrong ... which would suck for them. The idea is you work hard in HS, and you get a reward by either saving money by getting your college degree quicker, or you avoid poly sci and spend more time on pre-med or whatever you want to be.

But, I'm curious. My kid took AP classes too, but she had to read parts of various textbooks (that teachers made availabe) and even primary source stuff like federalist papers. Do you guys in Texas do that too?

You are incorrect. It is an invalid reading of the second amendment. Ask someone familiar with English and/or Law to explain to you the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.

Oh poster please... Go back to snark school.
Why don't you tackle that question I've asked three times (see 234) and tell us what the purpose of that prefatory clause is. Or in other words, demonstrate how it's prefatory. And let us all know why they took the trouble to make sure it was in there, alone among ALL the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

...

The point isn't that the liberal view should be "hidden" from students. The point is that when you purposefully change the meaning of a thing as important as the Bill of Rights. You should have a prefatory clause, nudge, that explains the purpose of the summary, as written.

Like 2A does?

So how does this summary "change the meaning"? Speaking of unanswered questions...

Good question. I intended to explain and did in the post above. As an aside, I was not aware of prefatory clauses prior to the job I took 4years ago working as a technical expert for a law firm. Prior to that I had to assume the meaning being explained to me by experts was correct.

 

[Pogo]

I guess by previous post you mean this one:

Well, look, 4 sup ct justices and a good number of academics do believe that the milita clause is not independent of the right clause. But, the Heller decision decided the law in 2008, and the prevailing view became that the founders believed there was a right to own firearms that underlaid the milia clause. Personally, I think that was correct. But, people who have studied more history than I, disagree, and I don't insult their abilty to read (infer insult to your intellect there, buddy)

But more to my original post to you. Thanks for confirming that the teachers used other texts and primary sources. But, the way AP classes work is the ONLY grade that counts is the test score on the standardized AP test that all students take for the same AP course.

AP Score - What's a Good AP Score?

As far as the study guide goes, the school did the kids a disservice by using it. Ideology is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test. If the question involved the effect of the milita clause, the kids using that study guide missed the question, and that's wrong. If they study, they should know the right answer.

I did not say "independent clause." I said prefatory clause. Since you are confused as to thinking prefatory is independent I invite you to look up the meaning of "prefatory clause." I do not intone that you may not be able to read english. I merely point out that prefatory clauses are not often used outside of the law.

Additionally, I do not think under-laid means what you think it means. I do not say this with bad intent. I merely point out that your use of the term indicates, to me, that you are using it incorrectly. This because, you have given support to the very incorrect reading.

In my words, the point of a prefatory clause is to explain why the operative clause, that follows, has value. The writer was in essence saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and because of this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He is not saying the militia has a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. The way in which the phrase was changed, changes entirely who the actor is in the operative clause by converting from an active voice to a passive voice half way through the new sentence. This is a grievous error that changed the actor from the people to the people in a militia, the purpose of which is clear.

>>> The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test.

I disagree. When studying history, getting the most right answer is not the only relevant thing. I have no problem with presenting both views regarding the meaning of the sentence, as that is also a part of our history.

You've explained what a prefatory clause is; you haven't touched the question of why this particular clause exists in both versions of the Second Amendment. And that's why I ask why such a clause exists ONLY in this Amendment and no others. In other words, since the Founders saw no need to qualify the others, that would seem to argue against prefatory and in favor of operative (dependent).

So my question is, what is the evidence that it's intended as prefatory? If that's what it is, why is it even in there? A Constitution is to establish a framework for government; it's not a philosophical treatise. Ergo the clause must have some function...

 

[Zona]

Want all this to stop. Get a group together to teach black people to legally own firearms in the hood and suburbs. This happened under reagan and he lost his damn mind. I wonder what the nra would say to a campaign to raise the numbers of black inner city folks legally carrying fire arms. That makes me smile.

 

[RKMBrown]

I guess by previous post you mean this one:

Well, look, 4 sup ct justices and a good number of academics do believe that the milita clause is not independent of the right clause. But, the Heller decision decided the law in 2008, and the prevailing view became that the founders believed there was a right to own firearms that underlaid the milia clause. Personally, I think that was correct. But, people who have studied more history than I, disagree, and I don't insult their abilty to read (infer insult to your intellect there, buddy)

But more to my original post to you. Thanks for confirming that the teachers used other texts and primary sources. But, the way AP classes work is the ONLY grade that counts is the test score on the standardized AP test that all students take for the same AP course.

AP Score - What's a Good AP Score?

As far as the study guide goes, the school did the kids a disservice by using it. Ideology is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test. If the question involved the effect of the milita clause, the kids using that study guide missed the question, and that's wrong. If they study, they should know the right answer.

I did not say "independent clause." I said prefatory clause. Since you are confused as to thinking prefatory is independent I invite you to look up the meaning of "prefatory clause." I do not intone that you may not be able to read english. I merely point out that prefatory clauses are not often used outside of the law.

Additionally, I do not think under-laid means what you think it means. I do not say this with bad intent. I merely point out that your use of the term indicates, to me, that you are using it incorrectly. This because, you have given support to the very incorrect reading.

In my words, the point of a prefatory clause is to explain why the operative clause, that follows, has value. The writer was in essence saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and because of this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He is not saying the militia has a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. The way in which the phrase was changed, changes entirely who the actor is in the operative clause by converting from an active voice to a passive voice half way through the new sentence. This is a grievous error that changed the actor from the people to the people in a militia, the purpose of which is clear.

>>> The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test.

I disagree. When studying history, getting the most right answer is not the only relevant thing. I have no problem with presenting both views regarding the meaning of the sentence, as that is also a part of our history.

You've explained what a prefatory clause is; you haven't touched the question of why this particular clause exists in both versions of the Second Amendment. And that's why I ask why such a clause exists ONLY in this Amendment and no others. In other words, since the Founders saw no need to qualify the others, that would seem to argue against prefatory and in favor of operative (dependent).

So my question is, what is the evidence that it's intended as prefatory? If that's what it is, why is it even in there? A Constitution is to establish a framework for government; it's not a philosophical treatise. Ergo the clause must have some function...

As I explained, it was done to provide a background, an explanation, a prefatory and declarative statement for the restrictive (operative) clause that followed. Just because it is a legal document does not mean it has to be written without description or purpose.

You asked for other similar examples in the Constitution. Here are a couple that I just skimmed for ya.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is a very long winded explanation of that which follows prior to the Bill of Rights Amendments.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

That is a long winded explanation of why the bill of rights were amended therein.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just to clarify, if the purpose of the restrictive clause is no longer necessary, that the militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Then, perhaps we need to write a new amendment to modify the restriction to reflect the current purposes of weapons. The restrictions in the bill of rights are not in stone, we have a means to modify them. What I don't support is the liberal rewriting of the meanings of restrictions on government as the opposite, that of restrictions on the people to be free of said restrictions. This is a bastardization of terms that is not acceptable.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

Guyer High School (and obviously several others) are complicit in attempting to condition students to interpret the 2nd Amendment in a clearly opposite manner in which it was intended. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th are also misinterpreted as several commenters below pointed out.

This textbook, currently being used by Guyer High School, is attempting to redefine the Second Amendment to impressionable young minds. Parents, you must speak up and demand action. Investigate your child's history book ASAP, and post more pictures in the comments below. Call your school and demand that revisionist history books like this are removed from the school district.

Textbook version: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."

Actual 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did you catch the sleight of hand?

A militia is a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. It's a common man army of citizens, NOT soldiers. The citizens are called up in emergencies to protect the free State.

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The textbook version implies that we're only allowed to keep and bear arms if we're in a State militia, a clear misrepresentation of the 2nd Amendment.​

Progressives lie. All the time.

This is an unabashed and shameful editing of the 2nd Amendment. I am quite surprised to see that the high school which has these textbooks for their students is located in Denton, Texas. Texans should know better than this!

Yeah, that's why they elected sissyboy draftdodger Bush as their Governor. Only a weakling listens to somebody who talks tough.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Funny, they have the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution on an "Advanced Placement Exam"

Dunno which is worse folks, I knew the first 10 amendments in 1st Grade. At any rate, that is indoctrination of the worst kind. The poor kid will start asking gun owners "hey are you in a militia?" to which they will reply, "No. What makes you say that?" The kid will respond, "I learned in school that only people in militias own guns, that's what the Second Amendment says!"

This 18th Century manifesto for the 1% is so vague that anyone can read it practically any way he wants. The way I read it is that "well-regulated" is the reason citizens should be familiar with firearms, not the "militia" being the reason. "Regulated" doesn't make sense if it is thought to deal with military regulations, such as saluting an officer. It means, at least in my own experience fighting a war, that we can't have a functional military without many of the troops having had personal experience with guns before they joined the military. Also, I interpret "security of a free state" as including personal security against criminals. What good would it to have a strong defense when at home criminals were allowed to run wild over an unarmed citizenry?

 

[Pogo]

I guess by previous post you mean this one:

I did not say "independent clause." I said prefatory clause. Since you are confused as to thinking prefatory is independent I invite you to look up the meaning of "prefatory clause." I do not intone that you may not be able to read english. I merely point out that prefatory clauses are not often used outside of the law.

Additionally, I do not think under-laid means what you think it means. I do not say this with bad intent. I merely point out that your use of the term indicates, to me, that you are using it incorrectly. This because, you have given support to the very incorrect reading.

In my words, the point of a prefatory clause is to explain why the operative clause, that follows, has value. The writer was in essence saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and because of this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He is not saying the militia has a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. The way in which the phrase was changed, changes entirely who the actor is in the operative clause by converting from an active voice to a passive voice half way through the new sentence. This is a grievous error that changed the actor from the people to the people in a militia, the purpose of which is clear.

>>> The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test.

I disagree. When studying history, getting the most right answer is not the only relevant thing. I have no problem with presenting both views regarding the meaning of the sentence, as that is also a part of our history.

You've explained what a prefatory clause is; you haven't touched the question of why this particular clause exists in both versions of the Second Amendment. And that's why I ask why such a clause exists ONLY in this Amendment and no others. In other words, since the Founders saw no need to qualify the others, that would seem to argue against prefatory and in favor of operative (dependent).

So my question is, what is the evidence that it's intended as prefatory? If that's what it is, why is it even in there? A Constitution is to establish a framework for government; it's not a philosophical treatise. Ergo the clause must have some function...

As I explained, it was done to provide a background, an explanation, a prefatory and declarative statement for the restrictive (operative) clause that followed. Just because it is a legal document does not mean it has to be written without description or purpose.

You asked for other similar examples in the Constitution. Here are a couple that I just skimmed for ya.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is a very long winded explanation of that which follows prior to the Bill of Rights Amendments.

No, that's a mission statement, and a damn good one. But the whole purpose of a mission statement is to lay out a basis for what follows. This is not an Amendment or law. I'm looking for some kind of pattern that validates the theory of "prefatory", as well as some reason for its deliberate presence there.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

That is a long winded explanation of why the bill of rights were amended therein.

All I see there is procedural language. Nothing that offers a basis of "why" -- nothing that logically justifies what follows. Yet back in the Second Amendment you've got a document bending over backward to specifically qualify its own basis, where no other Amendment does. Does that not strongly imply that the phrase is there to apply the Amendment specifically?

Note, I'm off work soon so will be off the board the rest of the afternoon. Thanks for your thoughts, present and future. Your posts are always worthy.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Want all this to stop. Get a group together to teach black people to legally own firearms in the hood and suburbs. This happened under reagan and he lost his damn mind. I wonder what the nra would say to a campaign to raise the numbers of black inner city folks legally carrying fire arms. That makes me smile.

These gun-waving 1% lovers would change their minds if those who think the criminal ruling class of Greedheads and Heirheads should be overthrown realized that only getting guns would do that. The yellow rednecks worship the rich because they hate their Daddies for not getting rich and spoiling them, which is an infantile fixation. Their big hero, Teddy "I Wasn't Ready" Nugent, went to psychotic extremes of coprophilia in order to get someone else to fight in his place against the Commies. The yellow ones yell, and hollow fools follow them.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I don't doubt your veracity, but I'm not sure about "author's intent," because until 2008, it was not a "wrong" reading of the second. And, even now, it is a minority view that still has academic support as to the Founder's intent. Still, it's wrong, and any student taking the AP test, which would entitle them to college credit w/o having to pay for a college course, woudl have gotten the question wrong ... which would suck for them. The idea is you work hard in HS, and you get a reward by either saving money by getting your college degree quicker, or you avoid poly sci and spend more time on pre-med or whatever you want to be.

But, I'm curious. My kid took AP classes too, but she had to read parts of various textbooks (that teachers made availabe) and even primary source stuff like federalist papers. Do you guys in Texas do that too?

You are incorrect. It is an invalid reading of the second amendment. Ask someone familiar with English and/or Law to explain to you the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause.

Yes, if you have the grades in an AP class at the end of year you get to take a college level test to get college credits for the class. We also have what we call dual credit courses, in which community colleges come to the High Schools to teach a college level course to HS students.

Yes, our teachers and students also used and had access to, the actual documents vs. the liberalized text book form.

The point isn't that the liberal view should be "hidden" from students. The point is that when you purposefully change the meaning of a thing as important as the Bill of Rights. You should have a prefatory clause, nudge, that explains the purpose of the summary, as written.

Dual credit is an interesting trend that I support. Instead of taking AP classes, our best students will be able to take a full suite of Dual Credit courses and graduate HS with an Associates Degree.

Well, look, 4 sup ct justices and a good number of academics do believe that the milita clause is not independent of the right clause. But, the Heller decision decided the law in 2008, and the prevailing view became that the founders believed there was a right to own firearms that underlaid the milia clause. Personally, I think that was correct. But, people who have studied more history than I, disagree, and I don't insult their abilty to read (infer insult to your intellect there, buddy)

But more to my original post to you. Thanks for confirming that the teachers used other texts and primary sources. But, the way AP classes work is the ONLY grade that counts is the test score on the standardized AP test that all students take for the same AP course.

AP Score - What's a Good AP Score?

As far as the study guide goes, the school did the kids a disservice by using it. Ideology is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is preparing kids to get the most "right" answers on the test. If the question involved the effect of the milita clause, the kids using that study guide missed the question, and that's wrong. If they study, they should know the right answer.

I think of the militia as the Old West posse, civilians deputized by the sheriff. That couldn't happen if citizens couldn't have their own guns. The National Guard is as different from the militia as the Regular Army is different from the National Guard.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I guess by previous post you mean this one:



You've explained what a prefatory clause is; you haven't touched the question of why this particular clause exists in both versions of the Second Amendment. And that's why I ask why such a clause exists ONLY in this Amendment and no others. In other words, since the Founders saw no need to qualify the others, that would seem to argue against prefatory and in favor of operative (dependent).

So my question is, what is the evidence that it's intended as prefatory? If that's what it is, why is it even in there? A Constitution is to establish a framework for government; it's not a philosophical treatise. Ergo the clause must have some function...

As I explained, it was done to provide a background, an explanation, a prefatory and declarative statement for the restrictive (operative) clause that followed. Just because it is a legal document does not mean it has to be written without description or purpose.

You asked for other similar examples in the Constitution. Here are a couple that I just skimmed for ya.



That is a very long winded explanation of that which follows prior to the Bill of Rights Amendments.

No, that's a mission statement, and a damn good one. But the whole purpose of a mission statement is to lay out a basis for what follows. This is not an Amendment or law. I'm looking for some kind of pattern that validates the theory of "prefatory", as well as some reason for its deliberate presence there.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

That is a long winded explanation of why the bill of rights were amended therein.

All I see there is procedural language. Nothing that offers a basis of "why" -- nothing that logically justifies what follows. Yet back in the Second Amendment you've got a document bending over backward to specifically qualify its own basis, where no other Amendment does. Does that not strongly imply that the phrase is there to apply the Amendment specifically?

:

It probably does, but so what? The Constitution doesn't protect our right to have guns, only our guns protect that right. The Founding Fodder knew that, so they threw in this Amendment in order to take credit for something they couldn't protect themselves from.

 

[boilermaker55]

Damn! You might be one of the first they weed out for being "Un-American."

We need a civil war so bad to weed out all the leftist Un-American socialist.

It would be blood well let

-Geaux

 

[RKMBrown]

All I see there is procedural language. Nothing that offers a basis of "why" -- nothing that logically justifies what follows. Yet back in the Second Amendment you've got a document bending over backward to specifically qualify its own basis, where no other Amendment does. Does that not strongly imply that the phrase is there to apply the Amendment specifically?

Note, I'm off work soon so will be off the board the rest of the afternoon. Thanks for your thoughts, present and future. Your posts are always worthy.

You don't see that which they say is "desire[d]" as basis? The why is there, read again.

Yes, in the second amendment, the prefatory/declarative (non operative) clause is for the second amendment. Yes, the clause is a declaration of purpose of the second amendment. However, it is not a restrictive clause. The amendments formed therein, are "restrictions" on the federal government. Not restrictions on the people. Yes or no? If we can't agree on that fact, we can't read the second amendment with a clear understanding that the phrase in question can't in fact be a restriction on the federal government. It can't be a "restriction" on the federal government because it does not pertain to the federal government, the federal government is not the actor in the clause is it?

At best you could, with this understanding, also argue that the clause means the federal government also can't restrict a well regulated militia. You'll note that I am not professing that argument. I'm merely providing to you what the option is to the argument that it is a prefatory clause. If it is restrictive then it is restrictive to the federal government, not the people.

 

[bendog]

RKM, my kid also had AP "study guides." I didn't see that they were textbooks, but they were the only thing we had to buy. The rest of the material used was stuff the teachers had copied or put on reserve in the library. They used the Barrons book and the flash cards.

 

[RKMBrown]

Pogo, just to give you an out for your argument... While you won't find what you want in the 2nd Amendment. You will find what you want in the 14th. You see the 14th due process clause allows ALL of our rights to be taken away from us as long as due process is applied. Just as your land and home can be taken away, so to can your guns, and any other property for that matter. Oh yeah, and they can fine (tax) you as well for daring to maintain ownership of a gun. I'm very surprised that has not happened yet. An annual user fee on each gun and/or bullet would go a long way to eliminating guns. Gulp.

 

[bendog]

Just to give you an out for your argument... While you won't find what you want in the 2nd Amendment. You will find what you want in the 14th. You see the 14th due process clause allows ALL of our rights to be taken away from us as long as due process is applied. Just as your land and home can be taken away, so to can your guns, and any other property for that matter. Oh yeah, and they can fine (tax) you as well for daring to maintain ownership of a gun. I'm very surprised that has not happened yet. An annual user fee on each gun and/or bullet would go a long way to eliminating guns. Gulp.

I don't want an out for my argument, and frankly you're the only one with one. I was merely attempting to be pleasant, because my posts on this thread were not about ideology, but really about WTF was the OP saying about how AP is taught. How the texas schools chose that study guide is the real story. And I stopped reading your thread one clause in. Jeez dude, get a clue.

Lawrence Tribe's Horn book on con law would be a start.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just to give you an out for your argument... While you won't find what you want in the 2nd Amendment. You will find what you want in the 14th. You see the 14th due process clause allows ALL of our rights to be taken away from us as long as due process is applied. Just as your land and home can be taken away, so to can your guns, and any other property for that matter. Oh yeah, and they can fine (tax) you as well for daring to maintain ownership of a gun. I'm very surprised that has not happened yet. An annual user fee on each gun and/or bullet would go a long way to eliminating guns. Gulp.

I don't want an out for my argument, and frankly you're the only one with one. I was merely attempting to be pleasant, because my posts on this thread were not about ideology, but really about WTF was the OP saying about how AP is taught. How the texas schools chose that study guide is the real story. And I stopped reading your thread one clause in. Jeez dude, get a clue.

Lawrence Tribe's Horn book on con law would be a start.

Yeah well I wasn't talking to you. I meant that for pogo.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact:

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.

You do not have to like this fact, but in refusing to accept it, you deliberatly choose to be wrong.

Fact: that's opinion, not "fact".

Nope.
Fact.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
As I sad: You can disagree, but in doing so you simply choose to be wrong.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

 

[Pogo]

Fact:

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.

You do not have to like this fact, but in refusing to accept it, you deliberatly choose to be wrong.

Fact: that's opinion, not "fact".

Nope.
Fact.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
As I sad: You can disagree, but in doing so you simply choose to be wrong.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

What does a court hand down?

OPINION.

The fact is that the words were written down. That's documented. The opinion is what the words mean.

 

[Pogo]

All I see there is procedural language. Nothing that offers a basis of "why" -- nothing that logically justifies what follows. Yet back in the Second Amendment you've got a document bending over backward to specifically qualify its own basis, where no other Amendment does. Does that not strongly imply that the phrase is there to apply the Amendment specifically?

Note, I'm off work soon so will be off the board the rest of the afternoon. Thanks for your thoughts, present and future. Your posts are always worthy.

You don't see that which they say is "desire[d]" as basis? The why is there, read again.

Yes, in the second amendment, the prefatory/declarative (non operative) clause is for the second amendment. Yes, the clause is a declaration of purpose of the second amendment. However, it is not a restrictive clause. The amendments formed therein, are "restrictions" on the federal government. Not restrictions on the people. Yes or no? If we can't agree on that fact, we can't read the second amendment with a clear understanding that the phrase in question can't in fact be a restriction on the federal government. It can't be a "restriction" on the federal government because it does not pertain to the federal government, the federal government is not the actor in the clause is it?

At best you could, with this understanding, also argue that the clause means the federal government also can't restrict a well regulated militia. You'll note that I am not professing that argument. I'm merely providing to you what the option is to the argument that it is a prefatory clause. If it is restrictive then it is restrictive to the federal government, not the people.

Of course the restriction, like the other Amendments, is on the government. We all agree on that; it's what the Liberalism that founded us is all about. That's articulated in the clause "shall not be infringed", and what that means is not in question.

What is in question is the previous phrase, the one you describe as prefatory. If as you assert it's not intended to restrict, modify or qualify ---- then what IS it intended to do?

Again none of the other Amendments felt the need to qualify or describe their basis. It was decided in committee and hammered out, and that was it; any justifications would have been plead in negotiating them. The ones that survived were writ down as simple declarations.

Then there's this one, all alone with a qualifying phrase. How do you explain that? I'm just not convinced it's sitting there for no reason.