Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Pogo]

You've gotten an answer, several times, your petulant foot-stamping notwithstanding.

That you don't LIKE the answer is utterly immaterial. Insisting it's not there is simply childish.

Foxfyre rendered your silly comma question moot when she posted images of the original versions of COTUS. You're beating a dead horse. I hope at least you're getting some aerobic benefit from it.

-- and voilà, that's the only kind of answer I've gotten. It's like a conversation with fricking Pee Wee Herman.

Oh, good Gaea -- will somebody PLEASE agree with Pogo that he's smarter than the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS put together?

One more time, for the English-major-impaired:

The study guide in the OP gets the 2nd wrong because it's stating it is a collective right, not an individual one.

Now lie again and say the question hasn't been answered. You'll only prove me correct when I say you're being a petulant child.

-- And where exactly does it say that?

Once again, as I asked days ago, where's the word "only"?

So you believe the phrase "the people" in the book can only mean "the people collectively", and yet the exact same phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment means the individual?

Same phrase.

What's it like, having it both ways?

 

[Pogo]

Further, if a big deal is to be made of the commas and their placement in the 2nd Amendment, consider this image of the original document preserved by the Library of Congress:

See that? One comma.

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0100/01450021.gif

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

Author David E. Young writes:
Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State in the Washington Administration prepared an official printing of the amendments. This is the version that he authenticated as being the amendments proposed by Congress, ratified by the state legislatures, and made part of the Constitution under the ratification procedure set forth in Article V. Jefferson's official imprint of the Second Amendment has one middle comma with only the leading word, "A", of the sentence capitalized.(On Second Opinion Blog: Commas and the "Original" Version of the Second Amendment)

This law journal article states:
The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation is not uniformly reported; another version has four commas, after "militia," "state," and "arms." Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976).(The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights)

So, it appears the states ratified insignificant differing versions of the Bill of Rights. These slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation.

And all this only magnifies the gross error and failure to educate as demonstrated in that textbook emphasized in the OP.

Not much of an analysis, but Foxy has at least grokked what the question was. Thank you.

But do tell, how does this "insignificant" punctuation "magnify the gross error"? And the original question-- what's the "error"?

Here's why commas matter. They can change meaning radically. The old example noted before:
"Let's eat, Grandma!" versus
"Let's eat Grandma!"

Two radically different meanings rendered by nothing more than the presence or absence of a comma.

I also noted back there that they could have, if they wanted to, written:

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.

Exact same words, different punctuation. Had they written it this way there would be no murky meaning. In this version, it would be clearly "the right of the people (to keep and bear arms) that is noted as "necessary to the security of a free State".

But that's not the construction, is it?

The actual construction (the ratified version):
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.

This means something different -- what is "necessary to the security of a free state" is now "a well regulated militia". And this is the way it was written, both before and after revision.

This is where RKMBrown sees the "well regulated militia" clause as "prefatory" -- a passage which sort of introduces the following "the right of the people" etc.

My point to him was that, unless a connection was intended between the militia and the eventual thrust of the Amendment, there's no reason to qualify the right with the militia application, as distinct from other applications. If as Brown implies this opening clause is a justification for the Amendment, then it's odd that this is the only Amendment that finds a need for any such justification, is it not?

I've been mostly posting over people's heads who would rather set up strawmen about gun rights than strain their brain on grammatical logic. Maybe you can follow the question.

Somebody else did it here--

>> The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: &#8220;Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.&#8221; In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary. << -- Clause and Effect

Then again there's an obvious difference (the same one) between:

&#8220;Caesar being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Because Caesar is in command of the earth I fear neither...) and
&#8220;Caesar, being in command of the earth I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Caesar is being personally addressed and told "Because I (the speaker) command the earth, I fear neither...")

All due to the location of a comma.

Why this grammatical tangent?

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

The point I made and I believe others have made is that extra commas and capitalization inserted into the functional copies sent out to some states for ratification does not change the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. The historians have researched this quite thoroughly as demonstrated in the links I provided for the documents I posted and for the SCOTUS opinions on the subject. And as has been competently documented on this thread, the Supreme Court has now affirmed that original intent in three separate rulings.

If you look at the history, the legal commentary and interpretations, and the Supreme Court rulings, forgive me but only an idiot or somebody insufferably stubborn would not know that the text book in the OP got it wrong.

I don't think you're an idiot.

Again, I'm not commenting on SCOTUS or any other latter day legal interpretations; I'm asking us to consider the phrasing and why it might have been done the way it was, and deliberately so.

The commas are part of that but so is the initial phrase. I agree that commas and other punctuation in the 18th century were tossed around willy-nilly (the one after "Militia" in the original version is obviously nonfunctional). But that doesn't mean the reverse-- that none of them ever meant anything.

To put it another way, I'm not asking what SCOTUS had in mind; I'm pondering what the Founders had in mind. I keep asking for 18th-century Founders, and I keep getting 19th/20th century SCOTUS. Wonder why the question is so dangerous that it has to be morphed into a question that was never asked...


As noted way back, sloppy writing leads to exactly these uncertainties.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not much of an analysis, but Foxy has at least grokked what the question was. Thank you.

But do tell, how does this "insignificant" punctuation "magnify the gross error"? And the original question-- what's the "error"?

Here's why commas matter. They can change meaning radically. The old example noted before:
"Let's eat, Grandma!" versus
"Let's eat Grandma!"

Two radically different meanings rendered by nothing more than the presence or absence of a comma.

I also noted back there that they could have, if they wanted to, written:

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.

Exact same words, different punctuation. Had they written it this way there would be no murky meaning. In this version, it would be clearly "the right of the people (to keep and bear arms) that is noted as "necessary to the security of a free State".

But that's not the construction, is it?

The actual construction (the ratified version):
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.

This means something different -- what is "necessary to the security of a free state" is now "a well regulated militia". And this is the way it was written, both before and after revision.

This is where RKMBrown sees the "well regulated militia" clause as "prefatory" -- a passage which sort of introduces the following "the right of the people" etc.

My point to him was that, unless a connection was intended between the militia and the eventual thrust of the Amendment, there's no reason to qualify the right with the militia application, as distinct from other applications. If as Brown implies this opening clause is a justification for the Amendment, then it's odd that this is the only Amendment that finds a need for any such justification, is it not?

I've been mostly posting over people's heads who would rather set up strawmen about gun rights than strain their brain on grammatical logic. Maybe you can follow the question.

Somebody else did it here--

>> The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary. << -- Clause and Effect

Then again there's an obvious difference (the same one) between:

“Caesar being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Because Caesar is in command of the earth I fear neither...) and
“Caesar, being in command of the earth I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Caesar is being personally addressed and told "Because I (the speaker) command the earth, I fear neither...")

All due to the location of a comma.

Why this grammatical tangent?

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

The point I made and I believe others have made is that extra commas and capitalization inserted into the functional copies sent out to some states for ratification does not change the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. The historians have researched this quite thoroughly as demonstrated in the links I provided for the documents I posted and for the SCOTUS opinions on the subject. And as has been competently documented on this thread, the Supreme Court has now affirmed that original intent in three separate rulings.

If you look at the history, the legal commentary and interpretations, and the Supreme Court rulings, forgive me but only an idiot or somebody insufferably stubborn would not know that the text book in the OP got it wrong.

I don't think you're an idiot.

Again, I'm not commenting on SCOTUS or any other latter day legal interpretations; I'm asking us to consider the phrasing and why it might have been done the way it was, and deliberately so.

The commas are part of that but so is the initial phrase. I agree that commas and other punctuation in the 18th century were tossed around willy-nilly (the one after "Militia" in the original version is obviously nonfunctional). But that doesn't mean the reverse-- that none of them ever meant anything.

To put it another way, I'm not asking what SCOTUS had in mind; I'm pondering what the Founders had in mind. I keep asking for 18th-century Founders, and I keep getting 19th/20th century SCOTUS. Wonder why the question is so dangerous that it has to be morphed into a question that was never asked...


As noted way back, sloppy writing leads to exactly these uncertainties.

The wording, phrasing, punctuation, et al, based on the documents, transcripts of speeches, letters, and commentary left to us by the Founders are unmistakable. Freedom requires recognition of the unalienable right to self defense, even against one's own government if that government would presume to trample on the unalienable rights of the individual. There are no uncertainties. And while every Founder did not agree on every point of the principles of the Constitution, they all did agree on the intent and content of the ratified version including the Second Amendment.

Just a tiny sampling of just some of their thoughts during the ratification process of the Bill of Rights:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
In this commenary, John Adams recognized the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy.

The material and commentary that follows is excerpted from Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We may be looking at it backwards. The right to bear arms was here ever since the Mayflower, so the 2D Amendment merely establishes the right to turn the already armed populace into a militia.

Incorrect.
It prevents the state from infringing on a pre-existing right of the people.

 

[daveman]

-- and voilà, that's the only kind of answer I've gotten. It's like a conversation with fricking Pee Wee Herman.

Oh, good Gaea -- will somebody PLEASE agree with Pogo that he's smarter than the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS put together?

One more time, for the English-major-impaired:

The study guide in the OP gets the 2nd wrong because it's stating it is a collective right, not an individual one.

Now lie again and say the question hasn't been answered. You'll only prove me correct when I say you're being a petulant child.

-- And where exactly does it say that?

Once again, as I asked days ago, where's the word "only"?

So you believe the phrase "the people" in the book can only mean "the people collectively", and yet the exact same phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment means the individual?

Same phrase.

What's it like, having it both ways?

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

 

[Pogo]

Oh, good Gaea -- will somebody PLEASE agree with Pogo that he's smarter than the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS put together?

One more time, for the English-major-impaired:

The study guide in the OP gets the 2nd wrong because it's stating it is a collective right, not an individual one.

Now lie again and say the question hasn't been answered. You'll only prove me correct when I say you're being a petulant child.

-- And where exactly does it say that?

Once again, as I asked days ago, where's the word "only"?

So you believe the phrase "the people" in the book can only mean "the people collectively", and yet the exact same phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment means the individual?

Same phrase.

What's it like, having it both ways?

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

Bingo!

At long last, my work here is done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

-- And where exactly does it say that?

Once again, as I asked days ago, where's the word "only"?

So you believe the phrase "the people" in the book can only mean "the people collectively", and yet the exact same phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment means the individual?

Same phrase.

What's it like, having it both ways?

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

Bingo!
At long last, my work here is done.

You do not like the fact that 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 - but to deny that fact simply proves that you are intellectually dishonest.

 

[Pogo]

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

Bingo!
At long last, my work here is done.

You do not like the fact that 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 - but to deny that fact simply proves that you are intellectually dishonest.

We haven't touched on what I "like".
Don't try to grapple with concepts over your head. You'll pull a muscle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bingo!
At long last, my work here is done.

You do not like the fact that 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 - but to deny that fact simply proves that you are intellectually dishonest.

We haven't touched on what I "like".
Don't try to grapple with concepts over your head. You'll pull a muscle.

I accept your concession of the point, that, in 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

 

[Pogo]

You do not like the fact that 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 - but to deny that fact simply proves that you are intellectually dishonest.

We haven't touched on what I "like".
Don't try to grapple with concepts over your head. You'll pull a muscle.

I accept your concession of the point, that, in 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 can "accept" whatever you can dream up. Like I give a shit.

 

[daveman]

-- And where exactly does it say that?

Once again, as I asked days ago, where's the word "only"?

So you believe the phrase "the people" in the book can only mean "the people collectively", and yet the exact same phrase "the people" in the Second Amendment means the individual?

Same phrase.

What's it like, having it both ways?

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

Bingo!

At long last, my work here is done.

You mean you've been yammering on all this time...because you agree that the authors don't see the 2nd as an individual right?

 

[Pogo]

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

Bingo!

At long last, my work here is done.

You mean you've been yammering on all this time...because you agree that the authors don't see the 2nd as an individual right?

Oh --- so by that you mean the authors of the study book? I thought you meant the authors of the Constitution.



You're talking in endless circles. Every time you've suggested this book is "restrictive" I've invited an explanation for exactly how it is, which you don't have.
Then you fall back on this inane crap, pretending the question was never asked-- because you don't have an answer.
As I said, like debating Pee Wee Frincking Herman.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If the authors viewed it as an individual right -- why didn't they say so?

Bingo!

At long last, my work here is done.

You mean you've been yammering on all this time...because you agree that the authors don't see the 2nd as an individual right?

yeah WOW

--LOL

 

[daveman]

Bingo!

At long last, my work here is done.

You mean you've been yammering on all this time...because you agree that the authors don't see the 2nd as an individual right?

Oh --- so by that you mean the authors of the study book? I thought you meant the authors of the Constitution.



You're talking in endless circles. Every time you've suggested this book is "restrictive" I've invited an explanation for exactly how it is, which you don't have.
Then you fall back on this inane crap, pretending the question was never asked-- because you don't have an answer.
As I said, like debating Pee Wee Frincking Herman.

For someone who thinks he's terribly smart...you're pretty damn stupid.

Nevertheless, the fact remains...the FF correctly viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right, and wrote the COTUS to reflect that right. SCOTUS affirmed that.

You're wrong. Period. None of your whining alters that.

The book's authors INCORRECTLY agree with you, that the RTKBA is a collective right.

But keep stamping your feet, you petulant child. Maybe you should escalate to holding your breath until you turn blue.

 

[Abatis]

You STILL don't get it?

I "get" it just fine. You are focused on inconsequential questions, demanding we engage in inane discussion to arrive at inapposite "answers".

There's absolutely nothing in any of my context about the Supreme Court, anybody's right to bear arms, pre-existing this, post-existing that, or non-existing the other. You've plugged all that in. It's irrelevant here.

If one is interested in understanding the meaning and action of the 2nd Amendment, the philosophical concepts and legal facts that I speak of are the only things worth inspecting and discussing.

Take a reading comprehension course sometime soon. If you still need help, see Foxy's last post. She at least gets the question.

The question you are fixated on now has evolved from your original position set-out in post 101.

All your self awarded accolades about your superior intelligence is belied by your profound, self-imposed ignorance on the operation of the Constitution. Applying your form of "reading comprehension" to the 2nd Amendment is demonstrative of a lack of intellectual ability to comprehend and understand the philosophical underpinnings of what you are reading. To dismiss those principles shows a lack of intellectual integrity because, to read the 2nd Amendment divorced from the principles that are embodied in it and then to do what the principles forbid, exposes your rationalizations and misconstructions as the product of quite ordinary service to a political agenda.

 

[Pogo]

You STILL don't get it?

I "get" it just fine. You are focused on inconsequential questions, demanding we engage in inane discussion to arrive at inapposite "answers".

There's absolutely nothing in any of my context about the Supreme Court, anybody's right to bear arms, pre-existing this, post-existing that, or non-existing the other. You've plugged all that in. It's irrelevant here.

If one is interested in understanding the meaning and action of the 2nd Amendment, the philosophical concepts and legal facts that I speak of are the only things worth inspecting and discussing.

So the little dictator is going to hold his breath until he turns blue until the thread goes in the direction he wants.

That's so cute.

Unfortunately you don't get to dictate what other people discuss. Sucks to be you.

Take a reading comprehension course sometime soon. If you still need help, see Foxy's last post. She at least gets the question.

The question you are fixated on now has evolved from your original position set-out in post 101.

That's not "evolution", dumbass. It's a different point entirely, that being the one asking how this study guide book "misrepresents" the Amendment when it uses the same word. I never got an answer to that. Probably because there isn't one.

All your self awarded accolades about your superior intelligence is belied by your profound, self-imposed ignorance on the operation of the Constitution.

Your pissy meltdown is belied by your own lie, since I made no such self awarded accolade. And your dearth of reading comprehension is exemplified by your fatuous fantasies of (again) dictating what topics other people must discuss. Once again, I haven't brought up the "operation of the Constitution". Like it or lump it.

Applying your form of "reading comprehension" to the 2nd Amendment is demonstrative of a lack of intellectual ability to comprehend and understand the philosophical underpinnings of what you are reading. To dismiss those principles shows a lack of intellectual integrity because, to read the 2nd Amendment divorced from the principles that are embodied in it and then to do what the principles forbid, exposes your rationalizations and misconstructions as the product of quite ordinary service to a political agenda.

Nor have I been posting about philosophical principles. I've been posting about English and how it's written.

I'm sorry buy you appear to be a congenital idiot.

Hey, don't look at me, I told you to go for that reading comprehension course...

 

[Pogo]

You mean you've been yammering on all this time...because you agree that the authors don't see the 2nd as an individual right?

Oh --- so by that you mean the authors of the study book? I thought you meant the authors of the Constitution.



You're talking in endless circles. Every time you've suggested this book is "restrictive" I've invited an explanation for exactly how it is, which you don't have.
Then you fall back on this inane crap, pretending the question was never asked-- because you don't have an answer.
As I said, like debating Pee Wee Frincking Herman.

For someone who thinks he's terribly smart...you're pretty damn stupid.

Nevertheless, the fact remains...the FF correctly viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right, and wrote the COTUS to reflect that right.

They did, huh?
See post 101.

You're wrong. Period. None of your whining alters that.

OOOOH, ipse dixit. Curses, Peewee's incisive logic has found my Achilles heel. Thus gainsaid, I fall.

The book's authors INCORRECTLY agree with you, that the RTKBA is a collective right.

It isn't? So we can't have a militia? Thanks for clearing that up.

But keep stamping your feet, you petulant child. Maybe you should escalate to holding your breath until you turn blue.

 

[Abatis]

So the little dictator is going to hold his breath until he turns blue until the thread goes in the direction he wants.

LOL, says the person who has 60+ posts demanding others answer his "questions" and refusing to consider what they have offered as rebuttal to his useless musings.

Unfortunately you don't get to dictate what other people discuss. Sucks to be you.

I've enjoyed debating gun rights on-line since 1993; I'm quite familiar with anti-gunners ignoring fundamental principles of the Constitution and maintaining positions at odds with the operation of the Constitution.

The quality of anti's arguments has devolved since then because all you have is emotion. As we see with your attitude, presenting you with the true nature of the right to arms (not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd so the words, construction and punctuation of the 2nd has no bearing on the right) is met with petulant whining about the inapplicability of those concepts to your textual / grammatical argument . . . Well, yeah, that's the point.

That's not "evolution", dumbass. It's a different point entirely, that being the one asking how this study guide book "misrepresents" the Amendment when it uses the same word. I never got an answer to that. Probably because there isn't one.

Any notion that the right is conditioned or qualified by the declaratory clause is illegitimate. It is as absurd as arguing that gravity is conditioned by the wording, construction and punctuation of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Your pissy meltdown is belied by your own lie, since I made no such self awarded accolade.

You show a propensity to claim everyone needs more education because you have been posting over everyone's heads, that we PeeWee Herman's just don't understand your comma argument.

Once again, I haven't brought up the "operation of the Constitution". . . . Nor have I been posting about philosophical principles. I've been posting about English and how it's written.

For good reason; those principles and action render your "questions" to absurdities.

Trying to garner meaning from the 2nd Amendment while dismissing / ignoring the political philosophy / principles it rests on is illegitimate.

The right doesn't exist because of what the 2nd Amendment says . . . The right exists because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

 

[Abatis]

They did, huh?
See post 101.

Where was the government given the power to impact the arms of "the person" or the "citizen"? Where's is the word "individual"? Where's the word "personal" in Art I § 8?

You are inspecting the wrong part of the Constitution trying to discern what the right is.

It isn't? So we can't have a militia? Thanks for clearing that up.

Just another example of your incorrect thought base . . . There's no such thing as "militia rights", especially for the people.

 

[daveman]

Oh --- so by that you mean the authors of the study book? I thought you meant the authors of the Constitution.



You're talking in endless circles. Every time you've suggested this book is "restrictive" I've invited an explanation for exactly how it is, which you don't have.
Then you fall back on this inane crap, pretending the question was never asked-- because you don't have an answer.
As I said, like debating Pee Wee Frincking Herman.

For someone who thinks he's terribly smart...you're pretty damn stupid.

Nevertheless, the fact remains...the FF correctly viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right, and wrote the COTUS to reflect that right.

They did, huh?
See post 101.



OOOOH, ipse dixit. Curses, Peewee's incisive logic has found my Achilles heel. Thus gainsaid, I fall.

The book's authors INCORRECTLY agree with you, that the RTKBA is a collective right.

It isn't? So we can't have a militia? Thanks for clearing that up.

But keep stamping your feet, you petulant child. Maybe you should escalate to holding your breath until you turn blue.

What's it feel like, knowing you're on the exact opposite side of 240 years of history, and demanding that it's all wrong and only you are right?