Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Pogo]

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.

LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...

I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.

 

[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.

LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...

I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.

Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.

Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?

Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. The founders, by majority, wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My point on the 14th wasn't to bring all other amendments in... it was to point out the power of a single clause. In this case a clause that has the effect of throwing out all of the rights of the people and the states, with due process as defined by government. IOW we have no rights, none. Granted they've been taking em away one at a time. Second amendment is next, and it won't go based on the reading of the second. It will go based on the agreed upon meaning of the 14th.

14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This means any state may deprive a person of life, liberty, and/or property with due process of law. You want to remove guns? Easy create a tax on guns and ammo. You only need a few bullets to defend yourself. Register all bullets and pay a tax of 100bucks per bullet over 3.

 

[daveman]

Only a matter of time, guy.

People are tired of sharing their streets with heavily armed madmen.

So why can't you have that howitzer, if owning weapons is an individual right?

I don't want a Howitzer, you buffoon.

But if I did, I could have one, your puling notwithstanding. As long as you comply with the applicable Federal and state laws, you can own one. The ammo, too.

Perhaps you should just stop talking.

But Dammit, why should there be LAWS if you have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to have a weapon of your choice.

Or what you are aruging is that certain weapons are just too fucking dangerous for just anyone to have.

Okay. You've won me over. Let's get working on that assault weapon ban. That high capacity clip ban. And all those ot her bans that make you guys nuts.

You have a God-given right to be an absolute, hysterical moron on the internet.

Should we enact laws to limit that right?

 

[Pogo]

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.

LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...

I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.

Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.

Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?

Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.

I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.

The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?

This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.

But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?

First version, passed by Congress:
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.

Version ratified by the states:
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.

Just bad writing?

Punctuation is everything. The classic example: "Let's eat, Grandma!" versus "Let's eat Grandma!"

Now they could have used the same words and set it up like this:

II. 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.

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...

 

[daveman]

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.

I don't recall the NRA ever saying anything about race.

They'd be all too happy to have more legal gun owners. Especially if they paid dues.

 

[RKMBrown]

LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...

I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.

Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.

Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?

Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.

I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.

The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?

This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.

But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?

First version, passed by Congress:
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.

Version ratified by the states:
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.

Just bad writing?

No it's very good writing. No the word "since" or "because" are not there. Therefore while it may read that way to one that does not know what a prefatory clause is, it's only necessary to imagine it there if you don't know what a prefatory clause is. However, if you do know what a prefatory clause is, the because/since word is not necessary in the 2nd amendment.

For example: A well managed communications system being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed. The since/because is implied but not necessary. More particularly, with prefatory clauses since there is no operative statement the prefatory clause is nominally considered moot from a legal perspective. The right of the states to keep militias, well regulated or not, is protected by the 10th amendment, not the 2nd amendment.

Why bring it up? You include prefatory clauses as a non-binding explanation to the reader.

Someone wanted to make a bold, non-binding statement.

 

[tinydancer]

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.

I'm still looking into this company. We are talking stroke out time. Not done. Barely started.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's like saying damn it we are free men.

That does not mean damn it you will not restrict us because we are free men, but if we are no longer free men you can restrict us.

 

[RKMBrown]

Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...

Yeah but then they would not have the "shout" out to the milita that had just won the war, now would they? And that right there may be the best answer to the riddle. They put in the prefatory clause as a shout out to the militia for whom they were grateful.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I'm still looking into this company. We are talking stroke out time. Not done. Barely started.

TD, you know I love ya. But sometimes your posts are like reading Old Slovenian upside down in the rain.

 

[tinydancer]

LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...

I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.

Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.

Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?

Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.

I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.

The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?

This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.

But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?

First version, passed by Congress:
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.

Version ratified by the states:
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.

Just bad writing?

Punctuation is everything. The classic example: "Let's eat, Grandma!" versus "Let's eat Grandma!"

Now they could have used the same words and set it up like this:

II. 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.

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...

You cannot and shall not remove

 

[daveman]

I see Pogo is still upset that his opinion is not the law of the land.

I wonder -- does he realize that the very bedrock of law is absolutely precise language, and that those who write important things...like, say, a Constitution...and those who interpret important things are fairly familiar with the use of language?

Doesn't really look like, does it?

 

[Pogo]

Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...

Yeah but then they would not have the "shout" out to the milita that had just won the war, now would they? And that right there may be the best answer to the riddle. They put in the prefatory clause as a shout out to the militia for whom they were grateful.

An eighteenth-century "shout out"? Seriously? OK, now you're r e a l l y stretching. But that's funny.

I can see where they might be codifying an assurance that those militias would not be disbanded or nationalized, but it seems to be emphasizing a military context.

No, I'm staying with bad writing, especially with the comma thing. That first version made no sense at all.

 

[Pogo]

Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.

Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?

Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.

I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.

The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?

This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.

But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?

First version, passed by Congress:
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.

Version ratified by the states:
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.

Just bad writing?

Punctuation is everything. The classic example: "Let's eat, Grandma!" versus "Let's eat Grandma!"

Now they could have used the same words and set it up like this:

II. 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.

We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...

You cannot and shall not remove

PWI?

 

[Pogo]

Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.

Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?

Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?

Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.

I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.

The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?

This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.

But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?

First version, passed by Congress:
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.

Version ratified by the states:
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.

Just bad writing?

No it's very good writing. No the word "since" or "because" are not there. Therefore while it may read that way to one that does not know what a prefatory clause is, it's only necessary to imagine it there if you don't know what a prefatory clause is. However, if you do know what a prefatory clause is, the because/since word is not necessary in the 2nd amendment.

I'm hip. That's what I keep saying. So why is it there?

"Being" in this usage is the equivalent of "whereas". Can't be interpreted as past or future; it's a present condition.

For example: A well managed communications system being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed. The since/because is implied but not necessary. More particularly, with prefatory clauses since there is no operative statement the prefatory clause is nominally considered moot from a legal perspective. The right of the states to keep militias, well regulated or not, is protected by the 10th amendment, not the 2nd amendment.

Why bring it up? You include prefatory clauses as a non-binding explanation to the reader.

Someone wanted to make a bold, non-binding statement.

You don't NEED an explanation. If you want that law you just declare " the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed". Include the "well-managed system" qualifier, and it sure looks to me like you're legislating not what the people can have, but how the cell phone company has to operate.

Sorry, you're really not selling this. Can you find any other empty filler clauses in the Bill of Rights that have no purpose?

 

[Pogo]

I see Pogo is still upset that his opinion is not the law of the land.

I wonder -- does he realize that the very bedrock of law is absolutely precise language, and that those who write important things...like, say, a Constitution...and those who interpret important things are fairly familiar with the use of language?

Doesn't really look like, does it?

Aww, Dave feels left out being that he doesn't know what we're talking about.

Want to play, Dave?'
Explain that comma after "Militia".

 

[daveman]

I see Pogo is still upset that his opinion is not the law of the land.

I wonder -- does he realize that the very bedrock of law is absolutely precise language, and that those who write important things...like, say, a Constitution...and those who interpret important things are fairly familiar with the use of language?

Doesn't really look like, does it?

Aww, Dave feels left out being that he doesn't know what we're talking about.

Want to play, Dave?'
Explain that comma after "Militia".

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You're an expert in English.

SCOTUS, however, are expert in English AND the Constitution.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you!

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.

The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?

This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.

But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?

First version, passed by Congress:
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.

Version ratified by the states:
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.

Just bad writing?

No it's very good writing. No the word "since" or "because" are not there. Therefore while it may read that way to one that does not know what a prefatory clause is, it's only necessary to imagine it there if you don't know what a prefatory clause is. However, if you do know what a prefatory clause is, the because/since word is not necessary in the 2nd amendment.

I'm hip. That's what I keep saying. So why is it there?

"Being" in this usage is the equivalent of "whereas". Can't be interpreted as past or future; it's a present condition.

For example: A well managed communications system being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed. The since/because is implied but not necessary. More particularly, with prefatory clauses since there is no operative statement the prefatory clause is nominally considered moot from a legal perspective. The right of the states to keep militias, well regulated or not, is protected by the 10th amendment, not the 2nd amendment.

Why bring it up? You include prefatory clauses as a non-binding explanation to the reader.

Someone wanted to make a bold, non-binding statement.

You don't NEED an explanation. If you want that law you just declare " the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed". Include the "well-managed system" qualifier, and it sure looks to me like you're legislating not what the people can have, but how the cell phone company has to operate.

Sorry, you're really not selling this. Can you find any other empty filler clauses in the Bill of Rights that have no purpose?

I already did, see the "preamble" to the bill of rights.

And yes that is the point to prefatory clauses, they are not needed. They merely aid the reader. It's like saying "as you might expect." It's completely without meaning because it's not a part of the operative portion of the sentence. You keep asking for purpose, where there is none. This is why many people will remove prefatory clauses. This is also why many people argue to use only active voice, and never passive voice. They want you to get to the point and freak out when you take your time to get to it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I didn't quote the opinion.
I quoted the holding.
Thus, fact.

I ask again:
Why do you choose to be wrong?

 

[Pogo]

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.

I didn't quote the opinion.
I quoted the holding.
Thus, fact.

I ask again:
Why do you choose to be wrong?

It is a fact that that's what the court said. That's it. Waiter, check please.
What the actual words mean we continue to hash out. Thus, opinion(s).

Why do you choose to be obtuse?
Or is it not a choice?