Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[bendog]

I don't know what 'revisionism' you refer too. Both Scalia and the less conservative Justices agree the milita clause no longer means anything, because there are no militias today. The ulitmate question came down to whether there was an underlying right to private ownership.

The maj found the milita clause was merely prefatory, and the operative clause was the one about not infringing upon the right. Infringe meaning in 18th century English - frustrate or make unworkable.

The majority found congress can regulate and even ban weapons considered unreasonably dangerous and not reasonably connected to the underlying right to defend oneself.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know what 'revisionism' you refer too. Both Scalia and the less conservative Justices agree the milita clause no longer means anything, because there are no militias today. The ulitmate question came down to whether there was an underlying right to private ownership.

The maj found the milita clause was merely prefatory, and the operative clause was the one about not infringing upon the right. Infringe meaning in 18th century English - frustrate or make unworkable.

The majority found congress can regulate and even ban weapons considered unreasonably dangerous and not reasonably connected to the underlying right to defend oneself.

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

There was little nuance in Justice Scalia’s opinion as to whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment–“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”–alters how one should read the remainder of the amendment.

No, he wrote, “it fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above [in the majority opinion.] Along the way, Justice Scalia had pronounced Justice Stevens “dead wrong” in holding the view that the right to bear arms is a collective right, consistent with how Justice Stevens views the collective right people have under the constitution to petition the government.
Supreme Court Puts A Bullet in Gun Control | Center for Justice

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't know what 'revisionism' you refer too. Both Scalia and the less conservative Justices agree the milita clause no longer means anything, because there are no militias today. The ulitmate question came down to whether there was an underlying right to private ownership.

The maj found the milita clause was merely prefatory, and the operative clause was the one about not infringing upon the right. Infringe meaning in 18th century English - frustrate or make unworkable.

The majority found congress can regulate and even ban weapons considered unreasonably dangerous and not reasonably connected to the underlying right to defend oneself.

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

There was little nuance in Justice Scalia’s opinion as to whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment–“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”–alters how one should read the remainder of the amendment.

No, he wrote, “it fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above [in the majority opinion.] Along the way, Justice Scalia had pronounced Justice Stevens “dead wrong” in holding the view that the right to bear arms is a collective right, consistent with how Justice Stevens views the collective right people have under the constitution to petition the government.
Supreme Court Puts A Bullet in Gun Control | Center for Justice

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know what 'revisionism' you refer too. Both Scalia and the less conservative Justices agree the milita clause no longer means anything, because there are no militias today. The ulitmate question came down to whether there was an underlying right to private ownership.

The maj found the milita clause was merely prefatory, and the operative clause was the one about not infringing upon the right. Infringe meaning in 18th century English - frustrate or make unworkable.

The majority found congress can regulate and even ban weapons considered unreasonably dangerous and not reasonably connected to the underlying right to defend oneself.

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

There was little nuance in Justice Scalia’s opinion as to whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment–“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”–alters how one should read the remainder of the amendment.

No, he wrote, “it fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above [in the majority opinion.] Along the way, Justice Scalia had pronounced Justice Stevens “dead wrong” in holding the view that the right to bear arms is a collective right, consistent with how Justice Stevens views the collective right people have under the constitution to petition the government.
Supreme Court Puts A Bullet in Gun Control | Center for Justice

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

Some shrug off the Second Amendment with the nonsense that there is no longer a militia and therefore the second amendment no longer is a justification for people having a weapon if they want one.

Most of these folks generally want to neutralize the Second Amendment and give all such authority to the federal government and the courts to mostly disarm the general public.

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

 

[RKMBrown]

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

Some shrug off the Second Amendment with the nonsense that there is no longer a militia and therefore the second amendment no longer is a justification for people having a weapon if they want one.

Most of these folks generally want to neutralize the Second Amendment and give all such authority to the federal government and the courts to mostly disarm the general public.

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

While that may have been the "intent" as you say, the result, which is the bill of rights, does not include a right to personal self defense, nor does it include a right to collectively join together to defend their liberties. More particularly it contains no rights at all other than the right to not be restricted by the federal government per the written amendments.

Subject -> verb. The Subject of the amendments is the powers of the federal government not you.

 

[bendog]

Well, you're right in that in a sense every able bodied male (and I may assume female) is STILL part of a "milita" that the federal govt may call upon. I'm not sure the state laws concerning the formation of the natl guards allow the state to form yet "another" milita in addition to the natl guard. But the point is at THIS TIME there are no regulated militas. The Aryan Nation doesn't count.

The dissent argued that unless arms were necessary for milita purposes, there was no right. Scalia's main argument is that while men (and presumably women) could essentially be drafted, that is irrelevant in terms of an individual's right to self-defense.

Underlying the individual right was the historical disarming of the English population in the English Civil War. It's there. If the Congress and Potus outlawed guns, and ignored the scouts, we can resist. Of course they have F-22's, and of course this isn't gonna happen. It might have been a real threat in 1787, and it might be in 2300, but it ain't now.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well, you're right in that in a sense every able bodied male (and I may assume female) is STILL part of a "milita" that the federal govt may call upon. I'm not sure the state laws concerning the formation of the natl guards allow the state to form yet "another" milita in addition to the natl guard. But the point is at THIS TIME there are no regulated militas. The Aryan Nation doesn't count.

The dissent argued that unless arms were necessary for milita purposes, there was no right. Scalia's main argument is that while men (and presumably women) could essentially be drafted, that is irrelevant in terms of an individual's right to self-defense.

Underlying the individual right was the historical disarming of the English population in the English Civil War. It's there. If the Congress and Potus outlawed guns, and ignored the scouts, we can resist. Of course they have F-22's, and of course this isn't gonna happen. It might have been a real threat in 1787, and it might be in 2300, but it ain't now.

Wrong. The State of Texas most certainly does have well regulated militias that are not a part of the National Guard.

 

[Foxfyre]

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

Some shrug off the Second Amendment with the nonsense that there is no longer a militia and therefore the second amendment no longer is a justification for people having a weapon if they want one.

Most of these folks generally want to neutralize the Second Amendment and give all such authority to the federal government and the courts to mostly disarm the general public.

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

While that may have been the "intent" as you say, the result, which is the bill of rights, does not include a right to personal self defense, nor does it include a right to collectively join together to defend their liberties. More particularly it contains no rights at all other than the right to not be restricted by the federal government per the written amendments.

Subject -> verb. The Subject of the amendments is the powers of the federal government not you.

The Constitution confers no rights. The Constitution recognizes the existence of rights. The concept of unalienable rights that pre-exist government is a concept that the statists, leftists, wingnuts, and political class cannot or will not accept. And I have already posted ample support for my opinion about the unalienable rights of the people to collective and individual unalienable right to self defense that is the intent of the Second Amendment. I won't bother to do so again.

The Constitution, in the same amendment, also supports the necessity that when the people engage in collective defense of their lives, property, nation or other unalienable rights, the effort needs to be organized and regulated in order to be effective.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

Some shrug off the Second Amendment with the nonsense that there is no longer a militia and therefore the second amendment no longer is a justification for people having a weapon if they want one.

Most of these folks generally want to neutralize the Second Amendment and give all such authority to the federal government and the courts to mostly disarm the general public.

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

While that may have been the "intent" as you say, the result, which is the bill of rights, does not include a right to personal self defense, nor does it include a right to collectively join together to defend their liberties. More particularly it contains no rights at all other than the right to not be restricted by the federal government per the written amendments.

Subject -> verb. The Subject of the amendments is the powers of the federal government not you.

The Constitution confers no rights. The Constitution recognizes the existence of rights. The concept of unalienable rights that pre-exist government is a concept that the statists, leftists, wingnuts, and political class cannot or will not accept. And I have already posted ample support for my opinion about the unalienable rights of the people to collective and individual unalienable right to self defense that is the intent of the Second Amendment. I won't bother to do so again.

The Constitution, in the same amendment, also supports the necessity that when the people engage in collective defense of their lives, property, nation or other unalienable rights, the effort needs to be organized and regulated in order to be effective.

>>> individual unalienable right to self defense that is the intent of the Second Amendment

No. The intent of the second amendment was to permanently enshrine that, without further amendment, it is UN-constitutional for the federal government to infringe in the right. I'm not sure why you have a desire to bastardize the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment to some desire of yours and/or others for it to mean right to self defense is protected by the second amendment. It says nothing of the sort. Words have meaning. You are attempting to rewrite the amendment into something it is not.

>> The Constitution, in the same amendment, also supports the necessity that when the people engage in collective defense of their lives, property, nation or other unalienable rights, the effort needs to be organized and regulated in order to be effective.

No it does not support that. It merely makes mention of it. It is not an operative clause. Thus, it supports nothing. Not sure if you've ever worked with legal documents, but what you are attempting to do, in rewriting the terms and changing the meanings to support your desires is not supported by the words they used.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Aww... Pogo don't like the truth...
Poor Pogo...

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 disagree - it just makes you wrong.

 

[Pogo]

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

It is, if not "confusing" at least unexplained, why such prefatory clause, if not intended to modify what follows, should have been painstakingly included in the document if it has, as described, no meaning. I raised this question and got no answer.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

And some insert conclusions where none were drawn. I proffered no conclusion about what the comma placement means; I merely opened the question. It would seem the question is so inconvenient that some need to plug in their own presumptive conclusion so as to avoid facing the question at all.

...

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

Yet in the language, it is only the collective that is articulated.

The point of the OP seems to be indignation that the study book fails to articulate an individual right that the Constitution itself also fails to articulate. But spelling out an individual quality that was not so spelled out in the original would not be accuracy; it would be overreaching.

It's much the same argument as implying O'bama is a traitor (communist, Kenyan, atheist, whatever) because he's not wearing a flag pin. It's looking for extras that aren't required.

 

[kaz]

Well, you're right in that in a sense every able bodied male (and I may assume female) is STILL part of a "milita" that the federal govt may call upon. I'm not sure the state laws concerning the formation of the natl guards allow the state to form yet "another" milita in addition to the natl guard. But the point is at THIS TIME there are no regulated militas. The Aryan Nation doesn't count.

The dissent argued that unless arms were necessary for milita purposes, there was no right. Scalia's main argument is that while men (and presumably women) could essentially be drafted, that is irrelevant in terms of an individual's right to self-defense.

Underlying the individual right was the historical disarming of the English population in the English Civil War. It's there. If the Congress and Potus outlawed guns, and ignored the scouts, we can resist. Of course they have F-22's, and of course this isn't gonna happen. It might have been a real threat in 1787, and it might be in 2300, but it ain't now.

Wrong. The State of Texas most certainly does have well regulated militias that are not a part of the National Guard.

Militias of the people are defined by the people, not government. Clearly the founders didn't intend to give the people the right to bear arms, then say the government can take it away by just saying, sorry, you're not a militia.

The concept of a militia is consistent with their writings that guns and militias were to protect the people from our own government first.

 

[RKMBrown]

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

It is, if not "confusing" at least unexplained, why such prefatory clause, if not intended to modify what follows, should have been painstakingly included in the document if it has, as described, no meaning. I raised this question and got no answer.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

And some insert conclusions where none were drawn. I proffered no conclusion about what the comma placement means; I merely opened the question. It would seem the question is so inconvenient that some need to plug in their own presumptive conclusion so as to avoid facing the question at all.

...

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

Yet in the language, it is only the collective that is articulated.

The point of the OP seems to be indignation that the study book fails to articulate an individual right that the Constitution itself also fails to articulate. But spelling out an individual quality that was not so spelled out in the original would not be accuracy; it would be overreaching.

It's much the same argument as implying O'bama is a traitor (communist, Kenyan, atheist, whatever) because he's not wearing a flag pin. It's looking for extras that aren't required.

No. You are just plain retarded.

 

[daveman]

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

It is not confusing anybody. Some want to believe that the courts have the right and power to interpret a Constitutional amendment any old way they want to interpret it.

It is, if not "confusing" at least unexplained, why such prefatory clause, if not intended to modify what follows, should have been painstakingly included in the document if it has, as described, no meaning. I raised this question and got no answer.

Some try to use the placement of commas to change the intent of the Second Amendment.

And some insert conclusions where none were drawn. I proffered no conclusion about what the comma placement means; I merely opened the question. It would seem the question is so inconvenient that some need to plug in their own presumptive conclusion so as to avoid facing the question at all.

...

But the fact remains, that the original intent is that every citizen is a member of the militia that could be necessar at any time, and it is why the Founder thought it necessary to formally recognize that the people have an unalienable right to personal self defense as well as the right to collectively join together to defend their liberties.

Yet in the language, it is only the collective that is articulated.

The point of the OP seems to be indignation that the study book fails to articulate an individual right that the Constitution itself also fails to articulate. But spelling out an individual quality that was not so spelled out in the original would not be accuracy; it would be overreaching.

It's much the same argument as implying O'bama is a traitor (communist, Kenyan, atheist, whatever) because he's not wearing a flag pin. It's looking for extras that aren't required.

So, how's your impotent little hissy fit going? Has SCOTUS reversed its Heller ruling yet?

 

[Pogo]

No. You are just plain retarded.

So, how's your impotent little hissy fit going? Has SCOTUS reversed its Heller ruling yet?

See what I mean? Two ad hominems, a red herring and a player to be named later. That's it. This thread shoots blanks.

Extra credit to the first poster for so accurately guessing what I would have posted, seeing as how he sez I'm on his ignore list. Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. You are just plain retarded.

So, how's your impotent little hissy fit going? Has SCOTUS reversed its Heller ruling yet?

See what I mean? Two ad hominems, a red herring and a player to be named later. That's it. This thread shoots blanks.

Extra credit to the first poster for so accurately guessing what I would have posted, seeing as how he sez I'm on his ignore list. Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job.

Just peeking intermittently to see if you have become worthy... I see the answer is still no.

 

[daveman]

No. You are just plain retarded.

So, how's your impotent little hissy fit going? Has SCOTUS reversed its Heller ruling yet?

See what I mean? Two ad hominems, a red herring and a player to be named later. That's it. This thread shoots blanks.

Extra credit to the first poster for so accurately guessing what I would have posted, seeing as how he sez I'm on his ignore list. Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job.

Look, Skippy, I'm not the one throwing a tantrum and screeching about how much smarter I am than the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS.

Hint: That would be you.

 

[Montecresto]

I don't know what 'revisionism' you refer too. Both Scalia and the less conservative Justices agree the milita clause no longer means anything, because there are no militias today. The ulitmate question came down to whether there was an underlying right to private ownership.

The maj found the milita clause was merely prefatory, and the operative clause was the one about not infringing upon the right. Infringe meaning in 18th century English - frustrate or make unworkable.

The majority found congress can regulate and even ban weapons considered unreasonably dangerous and not reasonably connected to the underlying right to defend oneself.

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

There was little nuance in Justice Scalia’s opinion as to whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment–“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”–alters how one should read the remainder of the amendment.

No, he wrote, “it fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above [in the majority opinion.] Along the way, Justice Scalia had pronounced Justice Stevens “dead wrong” in holding the view that the right to bear arms is a collective right, consistent with how Justice Stevens views the collective right people have under the constitution to petition the government.
Supreme Court Puts A Bullet in Gun Control | Center for Justice

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

Precedence means a lot. For 230 years, Americans across the board have believed it to mean their personal right to posses firearms as a right that could not be infringed upon. And indeed, until of late, no one has much dared fuck with that. And it will be one hell of a heavy lift if indeed that's where "they" want to go with it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I can't believe Justice Scalia would say that the militia clause, any more than any other clause of the Constitution, no longer means anything. He, as much as any Supreme Court justice we have ever had, is well grounded in original intent. And the original intent is that every citizen of the country makes up the militia.

In his written opinion on Heller, Scalia's opinion:

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

Precedence means a lot. For 230 years, Americans across the board have believed it to mean their personal right to posses firearms as a right that could not be infringed upon. And indeed, until of late, no one has much dared fuck with that. And it will be one hell of a heavy lift if indeed that's where "they" want to go with it.

I'm all for it not being infringed. But from my reading it has been infringed by the states for 230 years.

 

[Montecresto]

The second amendment has two clauses, one is prefatory and has no operative clause thus is entirely meaningless, Scalia is correct. The other restricts the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. No, it does not proscribe where that right comes from. Nor does it grant us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not sure why this is confusing people.

Precedence means a lot. For 230 years, Americans across the board have believed it to mean their personal right to posses firearms as a right that could not be infringed upon. And indeed, until of late, no one has much dared fuck with that. And it will be one hell of a heavy lift if indeed that's where "they" want to go with it.

I'm all for it not being infringed. But from my reading it has been infringed by the states for 230 years.

Not necessarily disagreeing with that, but in which way do you refer?