Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Pogo]

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.

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?

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!

Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

 

[JoeB131]

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!

SCOTUS made a 5-4 decision. You go to a committee of 9, and half of them dont' agree with you, then you probably aren't on firm ground.

Especially when the OTHER half had to do handstands to explain why your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to a gun doesn't include Howitzers.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.



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.

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?

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!

Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

I don't think you are paying attn. Take the comma(s) out, it does not matter if they are in or out. It still means nothing. It is still just words that are not operative. There is no way to make them operative without completely rewritting the sentence to move the militia to an operative portion. It is not operative at all. Your imagination is running away with you. You want to make it out like the militia part is not separate, but it is. The second amendment was not written as a list of restrictions, because the first part of the sentence is not a restriction at all being necessary is not a restriction. Further, I pointed you to the section entitled "PREAMBLE" multiple times to show you other content in the bill of rights that also is not a restriction. Preambles and declarations, such as the preamble of the bill of rights and this prefatory/declarative clause in the second amendment of the bill of rights are just statements that explain what's going on here, why they are making the statement that follows. The point to the militia was to make mention of the militia and it's importance, but there was no restriction to place, as the tenth amendment covered that. As to the second the point is they made sure ALL OF THE PEOPLE had the right to bear arms by saying the federal government shall not restrict. You'll note that at that time the states could restrict, and did, the right to bear arms. It was not until the 14th amendment that we started applying federal laws, such as voter rights and anti-slavery laws to the states. It is also worth noting that the states have constitutions for things like gun rights.

Texas state constitution:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Sec. 24. MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.

 

[RKMBrown]

Texas is in an uproar over this book. Heads are rolling all over the state. Parents are yelling at Principals and Teachers for allowing this book to be used in our classrooms. Teachers are getting let go for this and other libtard reasons. Administrators are getting let go for this and other reasons. We recently booted our Principal and School Superintendent for their liberal lies and policies.

About what?

We now have a more conservative mindset leading our school system in my area. We are in a battle for hearts and minds, and it would seem, facts and history.

I asked before and no one bit, so take it if you like: do you believe that children's or students' minds are like a CDR that you burn and forever thereafter that student is incapable of developing,, challenging or augmenting that information?

Or to put it succinctly, are you into mind control?

>> About what?

Duh. The socialist progressive modern liberal bill of rights presented in the study guide.

>> do you believe that children's or students' minds are like a CDR that you burn

Everyone can be programmed to a certain extent, yes. For example, your evident inability to see the libtard bill of rights as the vile disgusting piece of crap that it is, points to the burn in that took place in your haid How you might ask? Easy. Pretend to be a libtard in libtard history class, get an A. Answer the question based on the actual bill of rights as written, get an F. Positive feedback, such as paying people to be libtards, and / or giving libtard questions and answers on tests and class room lectures, is an easy means to get people to tow the line.

>> and forever thereafter that student is incapable of developing,, challenging or augmenting that information?

Young minds are more pliable, more connections are being made, they learn faster, and they are literally a captive audience. That does not mean older minds are un-pliable, incapable of developing, free of influence, and incapable of self-challenging or self-augmenting.

Look at how fast Russia has turned from anti-capitalist/socialist to capitalist/anti-socialist economic policies. Normally when someone shows you the "right" way to do things you quickly unlearn the "wrong" way. This unless, of course, someone is paying you to do things the "wrong" way, such as by stealing/redistributing money to keep the "wrong" way going.

 

[Pogo]

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.

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?



Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

I don't think you are paying attn. Take the comma(s) out, it does not matter if they are in or out. It still means nothing. It is still just words that are not operative. There is no way to make them operative without completely rewritting the sentence to move the militia to an operative portion. It is not operative at all. Your imagination is running away with you. You want to make it out like the militia part is not separate, but it is. The second amendment was not written as a list of restrictions, because the first part of the sentence is not a restriction at all being necessary is not a restriction. Further, I pointed you to the section entitled "PREAMBLE" multiple times to show you other content in the bill of rights that also is not a restriction. Preambles and declarations, such as the preamble of the bill of rights and this prefatory/declarative clause in the second amendment of the bill of rights are just statements that explain what's going on here, why they are making the statement that follows. The point to the militia was to make mention of the militia and it's importance, but there was no restriction to place, as the tenth amendment covered that. As to the second the point is they made sure ALL OF THE PEOPLE had the right to bear arms by saying the federal government shall not restrict. You'll note that at that time the states could restrict, and did, the right to bear arms. It was not until the 14th amendment that we started applying federal laws, such as voter rights and anti-slavery laws to the states. It is also worth noting that the states have constitutions for things like gun rights.

Texas state constitution:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Sec. 24. MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.

The comma is an entirely separate grammatical issue. With or without it, it doesn't affect our examination of the phrase relationship. I'm just pointing out how sloppy the writing is, because in the first version (with the comma) the passage makes no sense at all.

I'm afraid your preamble comparison is inoperative. A setup description in a preamble is expected. That's what it's there for. You can't compare that to an Amendment, which has no such need. You don't need to explain why you're passing a law within the law itself; you just pass it. That is what indicates this qualifying phrase must have been painstakingly included for some other reason. And my original question -- why 2A employs such a phrase where no other Amendment does -- still stands unmolested.

So given this indication that the lead phrase is NOT prefatory (you haven't substantiated it), therefore it must be there for some other reason, related to the Amendment.

That's certainly not conclusive, but it is the indication.

I'm afraid the Texas Constitution is irrelevant here too. Texas didn't even exist as part of the country at the time 2A was writ.

 

[Pogo]

"And what does a comma do, a comma does nothing but make easy a thing that if you like it enough is easy enough without the comma. A long complicated sentence should force itself upon you, make you know yourself knowing it and the comma, well at the most a comma is a poor period that lets you stop and take a breath but if you want to take a breath you ought to know yourself that you want to take a breath. It is not like stopping altogether has something to do with going on, but taking a breath well you are always taking a breath and why emphasize one breath rather than another breath. Anyway that is the way I felt about it and I felt that about it very very strongly. And so I almost never used a comma. The longer, the more complicated the sentence the greater the number of the same kinds of words I had following one after another, the more the very more I had of them the more I felt the passionate need of their taking care of themselves by themselves and not helping them, and thereby enfeebling them by putting in a comma."

-- Gertrude Stein, Lectures in America

Just a bit of comma-ic relief.

 

[RKMBrown]

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?



Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

I don't think you are paying attn. Take the comma(s) out, it does not matter if they are in or out. It still means nothing. It is still just words that are not operative. There is no way to make them operative without completely rewritting the sentence to move the militia to an operative portion. It is not operative at all. Your imagination is running away with you. You want to make it out like the militia part is not separate, but it is. The second amendment was not written as a list of restrictions, because the first part of the sentence is not a restriction at all being necessary is not a restriction. Further, I pointed you to the section entitled "PREAMBLE" multiple times to show you other content in the bill of rights that also is not a restriction. Preambles and declarations, such as the preamble of the bill of rights and this prefatory/declarative clause in the second amendment of the bill of rights are just statements that explain what's going on here, why they are making the statement that follows. The point to the militia was to make mention of the militia and it's importance, but there was no restriction to place, as the tenth amendment covered that. As to the second the point is they made sure ALL OF THE PEOPLE had the right to bear arms by saying the federal government shall not restrict. You'll note that at that time the states could restrict, and did, the right to bear arms. It was not until the 14th amendment that we started applying federal laws, such as voter rights and anti-slavery laws to the states. It is also worth noting that the states have constitutions for things like gun rights.

Texas state constitution:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Sec. 24. MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY. The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.

The comma is an entirely separate grammatical issue. With or without it, it doesn't affect our examination of the phrase relationship. I'm just pointing out how sloppy the writing is, because in the first version (with the comma) the passage makes no sense at all.

I'm afraid your preamble comparison is inoperative. A setup description in a preamble is expected. That's what it's there for. You can't compare that to an Amendment, which has no such need. You don't need to explain why you're passing a law within the law itself; you just pass it. That is what indicates this qualifying phrase must have been painstakingly included for some other reason. And my original question -- why 2A employs such a phrase where no other Amendment does -- still stands unmolested.

So given this indication that the lead phrase is NOT prefatory (you haven't substantiated it), therefore it must be there for some other reason, related to the Amendment.

That's certainly not conclusive, but it is the indication.

I'm afraid the Texas Constitution is irrelevant here too. Texas didn't even exist as part of the country at the time 2A was writ.

Now you are just being obtuse. Every state in the nation has a constitution.

You appear to be attempting to make the argument that prefatory clauses can only be used, if at least two sentences have one. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Yet you think your argument wins. You argue that if there is only one use of that type of clause, it must not be that type of clause. So let's just assume the writers of the bill of rights COMPLETELY SCREWED UP, did not know what they were doing, did not know English, and we know better what they meant, and they did not mean it to be a non operative clause with non operative elements as written, but rather they meant to write something completely different that used completely different words and had a completely different meaning.



Get over it. Sometimes a "rose" is just a "rose."

For example, the following highlighted words from the preamble have no "purpose" and can be deleted:

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):

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: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (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.

You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

 

[Pogo]

I don't think you are paying attn. Take the comma(s) out, it does not matter if they are in or out. It still means nothing. It is still just words that are not operative. There is no way to make them operative without completely rewritting the sentence to move the militia to an operative portion. It is not operative at all. Your imagination is running away with you. You want to make it out like the militia part is not separate, but it is. The second amendment was not written as a list of restrictions, because the first part of the sentence is not a restriction at all being necessary is not a restriction. Further, I pointed you to the section entitled "PREAMBLE" multiple times to show you other content in the bill of rights that also is not a restriction. Preambles and declarations, such as the preamble of the bill of rights and this prefatory/declarative clause in the second amendment of the bill of rights are just statements that explain what's going on here, why they are making the statement that follows. The point to the militia was to make mention of the militia and it's importance, but there was no restriction to place, as the tenth amendment covered that. As to the second the point is they made sure ALL OF THE PEOPLE had the right to bear arms by saying the federal government shall not restrict. You'll note that at that time the states could restrict, and did, the right to bear arms. It was not until the 14th amendment that we started applying federal laws, such as voter rights and anti-slavery laws to the states. It is also worth noting that the states have constitutions for things like gun rights.

Texas state constitution:

The comma is an entirely separate grammatical issue. With or without it, it doesn't affect our examination of the phrase relationship. I'm just pointing out how sloppy the writing is, because in the first version (with the comma) the passage makes no sense at all.

I'm afraid your preamble comparison is inoperative. A setup description in a preamble is expected. That's what it's there for. You can't compare that to an Amendment, which has no such need. You don't need to explain why you're passing a law within the law itself; you just pass it. That is what indicates this qualifying phrase must have been painstakingly included for some other reason. And my original question -- why 2A employs such a phrase where no other Amendment does -- still stands unmolested.

So given this indication that the lead phrase is NOT prefatory (you haven't substantiated it), therefore it must be there for some other reason, related to the Amendment.

That's certainly not conclusive, but it is the indication.

I'm afraid the Texas Constitution is irrelevant here too. Texas didn't even exist as part of the country at the time 2A was writ.

Now you are just being obtuse. Every state in the nation has a constitution.

You appear to be attempting to make the argument that prefatory clauses can only be used, if at least two sentences have one. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Yet you think your argument wins. You argue that if there is only one use of that type of clause, it must not be that type of clause. So let's just assume the writers of the bill of rights COMPLETELY SCREWED UP, did not know what they were doing, did not know English, and we know better what they meant, and they did not mean it to be a non operative clause with non operative elements as written, but rather they meant to write something completely different that used completely different words and had a completely different meaning.



Get over it. Sometimes a "rose" is just a "rose."

For example, the following highlighted words from the preamble have no "purpose" and can be deleted:

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.

Again, you're still bringing in red herrings. We're discussing the United Stated Constitution, not the one of a state that didn't even exist at the time. Now, had your purpose been to show an example of another Constitution's body using a prefatory clause, you would have supported your point --- but it doesn't. The Texas passage as cited goes straight to the point. Which is what most of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights also do. So you're asking us to accept that, alone among not only the rest of the Bill of Rights but also by comparison to your example in another state, the only Constitutional ingredient that uses a prefatory clause is the Second Amendment. That's why I say it's not selling.

And again I don't know why you keep falling back on the Preamble. Another apples-and-oranges. A preamble is not a law; it is by definition an introduction. Therefore noting that a preamble contains prefatory clauses is like noting that rain contains water (of course it does-- it's rain).

You appear to be attempting to make the argument that prefatory clauses can only be used, if at least two sentences have one. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

That would be. I've never implied any such thing. If you have to descend to ad hominem and misrepresent my position, yours might be disintegrating.

 

[RKMBrown]

The comma is an entirely separate grammatical issue. With or without it, it doesn't affect our examination of the phrase relationship. I'm just pointing out how sloppy the writing is, because in the first version (with the comma) the passage makes no sense at all.

I'm afraid your preamble comparison is inoperative. A setup description in a preamble is expected. That's what it's there for. You can't compare that to an Amendment, which has no such need. You don't need to explain why you're passing a law within the law itself; you just pass it. That is what indicates this qualifying phrase must have been painstakingly included for some other reason. And my original question -- why 2A employs such a phrase where no other Amendment does -- still stands unmolested.

So given this indication that the lead phrase is NOT prefatory (you haven't substantiated it), therefore it must be there for some other reason, related to the Amendment.

That's certainly not conclusive, but it is the indication.

I'm afraid the Texas Constitution is irrelevant here too. Texas didn't even exist as part of the country at the time 2A was writ.

Now you are just being obtuse. Every state in the nation has a constitution.

You appear to be attempting to make the argument that prefatory clauses can only be used, if at least two sentences have one. That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Yet you think your argument wins. You argue that if there is only one use of that type of clause, it must not be that type of clause. So let's just assume the writers of the bill of rights COMPLETELY SCREWED UP, did not know what they were doing, did not know English, and we know better what they meant, and they did not mean it to be a non operative clause with non operative elements as written, but rather they meant to write something completely different that used completely different words and had a completely different meaning.



Get over it. Sometimes a "rose" is just a "rose."

For example, the following highlighted words from the preamble have no "purpose" and can be deleted:

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.

Again, you're still bringing in red herrings. We're discussing the United Stated Constitution, not the one of a state that didn't even exist at the time. Now, had your purpose been to show an example of another Constitution's body using a prefatory clause, you would have supported your point --- but it doesn't. The Texas passage as cited goes straight to the point. Which is what most of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights also do. So you're asking us to accept that, alone among not only the rest of the Bill of Rights but also by comparison to your example in another state, the only Constitutional ingredient that uses a prefatory clause is the Second Amendment. That's why I say it's not selling.

And again I don't know why you keep falling back on the Preamble. Another apples-and-oranges. A preamble is not a law; it is by definition an introduction. Therefore noting that a preamble contains prefatory clauses is like noting that rain contains water (of course it does-- it's rain).

Wrong. The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the federal government and declarations. It says so IN THE DAMN PREAMBLE. Are you able to "discern" the difference between a "declaration" and a "restriction?" Please explain what the difference is between a declaration about a list of amendments restricting the federal government and a restriction protecting our rights from the federal government. Do you really not now what a declarative statement is? Can you really not discern the difference between a list of restrictions, which the bill of rights includes, and a bill containing declarations and restrictions, which is what the bill of rights contains?

Are you actually incapable of understanding the difference between a declaration of information and a restriction?

 

[Pogo]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):

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: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (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.

You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

That they are connected has been my whole point all along, dood. You're the one claiming it's there for no reason, or as a meaningless introduction.

I suspect you're starting to see the folly of your own position.

 

[Sallow]

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.

That's the correct reading of it.

It's you folks that drop the militia requirement almost every time.

You folks bifurcate the Amendment every single time you cite it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):

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: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (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.

You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

That they are connected has been my whole point all along, dood. You're the one claiming it's there for no reason, or as a meaningless introduction.

I suspect you're starting to see the folly of your own position.

Wrong. But I do suspect you are starting to see the folly of your position.
Declaratory: 1: serving to declare, set forth, or explain 2a : declaring what is the existing law <declaratory statute> b : declaring a legal right or interpretation <a declaratory judgment>

 

[Sallow]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):

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: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (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.

You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

Malarkey.

The original intention of the Constitution was to provide that a professional army (Ground forces) under Federal Control would not be used.

The idea was that a "part time" army..or minutemen, be at the ready should the United States need them in cases of insurrection and land invasions.

It was a cheap method of providing such forces and a check against "big" government.

 

[RKMBrown]

Note the "colon" in the preamble. The sentences following the colon and preceding the actual amendments are informational. The way to read the bill of rights first two amendments is therefore as follows (emphasis added to show the portions of the list in the paragraph that are not operative):

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: (I) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (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.

You see, your error is in reading each sentence separately like they are unique pieces of art. But they are not. They are portions of a single long winded statement or paragraph if you will that cites a list of "declarations and restrictions."

Malarkey.

The original intention of the Constitution was to provide that a professional army (Ground forces) under Federal Control would not be used.

The idea was that a "part time" army..or minutemen, be at the ready should the United States need them in cases of insurrection and land invasions.

It was a cheap method of providing such forces and a check against "big" government.

Whatever dufus.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

I'd still like to see an explanation for the unnecessary comma. Was 18th Century punctuation as illogical as 18th Century political science? Can you think of a sentence about a different topic, using 21st Century punctuation, where a comma would make sense? Perhaps the Founding Fodder were so scared of violent revolution (which is how they themselves came to power) that, "bending over backwards," as was pointed out, they had to throw in the qualifying phrase to make extra sure about tricking the little people shut outside Constitution Hall into thinking that the Constipation was on the side of us, the people.

By the way, how is this 18th Century elitist manifesto relevant to 21st Century political science or even 19th Century political science?

 

[PrometheusBound]

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...

Again you're ignoring the decisive phrase "well-regulated." How about this: "Well-regulated defense being necessary, (people need to have guns and not rely on the government as their sole protection)"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

No. It's what the court held.
And thus, it is a fact.
You can choose to disagree - it just makes you wromg.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.



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?

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?

Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Well, since the SCROTUS believes that bribery is freedom of speech, they'd say that it was put in there so the printers could charge more. Possibly a lot more, if they needed an extra comma to go over a limit on a cheaper fee.

 

[Pogo]

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

No. It's what the court held.
And thus, it is a fact.
You can choose to disagree - it just makes you wromg.
Why do you choose to be wrong?

"Wromg"?

How a court interprets things (as to what they mean), or how you interpret things, or how I interpret things, those are opinions.

Things that actually exist as a particular nature (what things are) are facts.
Again, you don't make a "fact" by simply backspacing and typing the word "fact" in front in all caps.

Your car gets hit by a meteor -- that's a fact. You think that sucks, that's an opinion.

Full Definition of FACT

1
: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality


I ain't chur momma. Go buy a dictionary.