CDZ How We Will Finally Deal With Guns America

[Pogo]

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

Yes, it means that the militia is made up of the people, and if the people aren't allowed to keep their guns in their homes then they can't be kept in good working order. Here, I'll help you a little....

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That's all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the question.

That question being ---

WHAT is the purpose of the phrase (quote)

"a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State," (close quote)​

Note that the question is what is the purpose of the phrase --- as a whole --- not 'what is the purpose of this word or that word within the phrase'.

Obviously it's explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. That's not hard to see. The question is ---- WHY is it doing that?

The First Amendment, for example, does not say "a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy...." ---- it just goes right into "Congress shall make no law". All the other Amendments do the same thing. They don't need to make a logical argument; all of that is done in committee before the document is written down. And when it is the language is excruciatingly pored over.

And yet --- there's that phrase, trying to explain what follows. Why would it do that and be deliberately left in there?

 

[westwall]

The English langue is important ... Things like commas mean things.

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

Yes, it means that the militia is made up of the people, and if the people aren't allowed to keep their guns in their homes then they can't be kept in good working order. Here, I'll help you a little....

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That's all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the question.

That question being ---

WHAT is the purpose of the phrase

"a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" [end quote]​

Note that the question is what is the purpose of the phrase --- as a whole --- not 'what is the purpose of this word or that word within the phrase'.

Obviously it's explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. That's not hard to see. The question is ---- WHY is it doing that?

The First Amendment, for example, does not say "a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy...." ---- it just goes right into "Congress shall make no law". All the other Amendments do the same thing. They don't need to make a logical argument; all of that is done in committee before the document is written down. And when it is the language is excruciatingly pored over.

And yet --- there's that phrase, trying to explain what follows. Why would it do that and be deliberately left in there?

It is called a "Preparatory Phrase" and it explains WHY the Right shall not be infringed. Clear, simple English.

 

[Pogo]

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...

Hear hear. Exactamente.

Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

Again, ironical quip is ironical. Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment.

Indeed, and do you even know what it meant to be a classical liberal? It meant FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT. So, how do you reconcile all the writings of the Founders who ALL say that your interpretation is wrong?

My "interpretation"?

And what "interpretation" might that be?

 

[Wyatt earp]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Correct.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to restrictions by government consistent with Second Amendment case law.

But Congress must first act to indeed implement those restrictions, which it refuses to do.

Say what it? The 90th Congress did and was signed into law by LBJ October 22nd 1968



It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

[Pogo]

Leaving aside how important the "English langue" is, any literate reader would have to conclude that in the case of this document language, particularly given the passage of 240 years, commas don't necessarily mean things, I don't care what Gertrude Stein says.

I'm far more interested in the subordinate clause that opens the whole thing up. Because it's a basis of reasoning given where no basis of reasoning is needed (and which appears nowhere else in any Amendment). That begs the question of what its function is.

Bottom line (comma) commas or no commas, the 2A is a grammatical train wreck. And that matters because it makes the intent inscrutably vague.

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

Yes, it means that the militia is made up of the people, and if the people aren't allowed to keep their guns in their homes then they can't be kept in good working order. Here, I'll help you a little....

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That's all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the question.

That question being ---

WHAT is the purpose of the phrase

"a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" [end quote]​

Note that the question is what is the purpose of the phrase --- as a whole --- not 'what is the purpose of this word or that word within the phrase'.

Obviously it's explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. That's not hard to see. The question is ---- WHY is it doing that?

The First Amendment, for example, does not say "a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy...." ---- it just goes right into "Congress shall make no law". All the other Amendments do the same thing. They don't need to make a logical argument; all of that is done in committee before the document is written down. And when it is the language is excruciatingly pored over.

And yet --- there's that phrase, trying to explain what follows. Why would it do that and be deliberately left in there?

It is called a "Preparatory Phrase" and it explains WHY the Right shall not be infringed. Clear, simple English.

Actually the word you're looking for is prefatory. And all it means is that it "comes before" (as in preface).
We already know it comes before. The question I'm posing is WHY it's there at all, before or after.

And yes I understand it explains why. Already noted that. But that still doesn't explain --- why explain why.

No other Amendment finds a need to explain itself. Nor does any need to. And yet --- there this is, all by itself.
I'm not suggesting there's a clear answer here. But I am suggesting it's an open question.

 

[fncceo]

I always wondered why sawed off shotguns could get you in big trouble.

They can get you out of big trouble too ...

 

[2aguy]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Well.......the AR-15 is the most common civilian and police rifle in the country....so they are protected under the 2nd Amendment...specifically protected by that phrase...thanks for clarifying that.....


Now, read Caetano, which came after Heller and clarified for he SJW court of appeals to get their act together and obey the ruling in Heller...

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]



Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Germany did this to the Jews as well... That didnt turn out so good.

Wrong.

‘Whenever the gun-control debate heats up in the United States — usually after an all-too-common mass shooting — guns rights activists often cite Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun laws as an example of the dangers of gun control. They claim that these laws, enacted by Hitler himself, disarmed the German people, including minority groups, and made them more vulnerable to oppression and eventually the Holocaust. This historical “fact” often is trumpeted far and wide as an example of what could happen to America with stricter gun-control laws. The problem with that? It’s mostly a myth.’

Adolf Hitler and the Myth of Nazi Gun Control Laws

 

[westwall]

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...

Hear hear. Exactamente.

Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

Again, ironical quip is ironical. Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment.

Indeed, and do you even know what it meant to be a classical liberal? It meant FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT. So, how do you reconcile all the writings of the Founders who ALL say that your interpretation is wrong?

My "interpretation"?

And what "interpretation" might that be?

The STATIST one.

 

[westwall]

No, it isn't. It is as clear as a bell. The fact that you choose to ignore the common meaning of the English language at the time is on you.

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

Yes, it means that the militia is made up of the people, and if the people aren't allowed to keep their guns in their homes then they can't be kept in good working order. Here, I'll help you a little....

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That's all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the question.

That question being ---

WHAT is the purpose of the phrase

"a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" [end quote]​

Note that the question is what is the purpose of the phrase --- as a whole --- not 'what is the purpose of this word or that word within the phrase'.

Obviously it's explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. That's not hard to see. The question is ---- WHY is it doing that?

The First Amendment, for example, does not say "a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy...." ---- it just goes right into "Congress shall make no law". All the other Amendments do the same thing. They don't need to make a logical argument; all of that is done in committee before the document is written down. And when it is the language is excruciatingly pored over.

And yet --- there's that phrase, trying to explain what follows. Why would it do that and be deliberately left in there?

It is called a "Preparatory Phrase" and it explains WHY the Right shall not be infringed. Clear, simple English.

Actually the word you're looking for is prefatory. And all it means is that it "comes before" (as in preface).
We already know it comes before. The question I'm posing is WHY it's there at all, before or after.

And yes I understand it explains why. Already noted that. But that still doesn't explain --- why explain why.

No other Amendment finds a need to explain itself. Nor does any need to. And yet --- there this is, all by itself.
I'm not suggesting there's a clear answer here. But I am suggesting it's an open question.

No, i used the word I wanted to.

pre·par·a·to·ry
(prĭ-păr′ə-tôr′ē, -pâr′-, prĕp′ər-ə-)
adj.
1. Serving to make ready or prepare; introductory. See Synonyms at preliminary.

preparatory

 

[007]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

The people realize the democrat party's REAL end game is to totally disarm America, so just admit it.

Do you realize that a Remington Woodsmaster Model 742 30.06 is far more powerful and dangerous than any AR-15? Both are magazine fed, semi automatic rifles, but the AR-15 shots a piddly little .223 caliber bullet, and compared to the 30.06 it's a pip squeak. BUT, the AR-15 is BLACK with a composite stock and it LOOKS SCARY, and the Remington has that pretty wood stock and fore grip, so it's NOT scary. See the difference? COSMETICS is the difference, but when compared side by side, the Remington rifle is far more powerful. So why is it that you people zero in on AR-15's? LOOKS and GROUP THINK is why, and ignorance of fire arms. This FL nut job could have done just as much killing with a pistol that he did with an AR. Pistols are actually more effective at close range and much easier to handle.

In any case, I can guarantee you this, you will NEVER totally disarm America without a second civil war. That's just a cold hard fact. When the vast majority of Americans own firearms, and most own more than one, they're not going to just hand them over, not now, not tomorrow, not ever.

But if you're SERIOUS about ending the mass shootings, then go after the REAL problem, the NUT CASES that do it... these products of LIBERAL America.

 

[westwall]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Germany did this to the Jews as well... That didnt turn out so good.

Wrong.

‘Whenever the gun-control debate heats up in the United States — usually after an all-too-common mass shooting — guns rights activists often cite Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun laws as an example of the dangers of gun control. They claim that these laws, enacted by Hitler himself, disarmed the German people, including minority groups, and made them more vulnerable to oppression and eventually the Holocaust. This historical “fact” often is trumpeted far and wide as an example of what could happen to America with stricter gun-control laws. The problem with that? It’s mostly a myth.’

Adolf Hitler and the Myth of Nazi Gun Control Laws

What is funny is you think that a progressive site is going to report accurately what the law was. Here is a more complete explanation of how the German laws were implemented. But these are facts so only read it if you truly want to know.

How the Nazis Used Gun Control

 

[Pogo]

It's hardly the first time I've brought this up but --- care to have a go at explaining what the purpose of that clause is?

Again, no other Amendment makes an argument for its existence. Nor does any need to; a Constitution is a simple declaration of "this is how we will roll". No explanation is necessary. Yet there's the 2A, all by itself, explaining its reasoning. Why would it do that?

Yes, it means that the militia is made up of the people, and if the people aren't allowed to keep their guns in their homes then they can't be kept in good working order. Here, I'll help you a little....

"It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army."

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

That's all very interesting but it has nothing to do with the question.

That question being ---

WHAT is the purpose of the phrase

"a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" [end quote]​

Note that the question is what is the purpose of the phrase --- as a whole --- not 'what is the purpose of this word or that word within the phrase'.

Obviously it's explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. That's not hard to see. The question is ---- WHY is it doing that?

The First Amendment, for example, does not say "a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy...." ---- it just goes right into "Congress shall make no law". All the other Amendments do the same thing. They don't need to make a logical argument; all of that is done in committee before the document is written down. And when it is the language is excruciatingly pored over.

And yet --- there's that phrase, trying to explain what follows. Why would it do that and be deliberately left in there?

It is called a "Preparatory Phrase" and it explains WHY the Right shall not be infringed. Clear, simple English.

Actually the word you're looking for is prefatory. And all it means is that it "comes before" (as in preface).
We already know it comes before. The question I'm posing is WHY it's there at all, before or after.

And yes I understand it explains why. Already noted that. But that still doesn't explain --- why explain why.

No other Amendment finds a need to explain itself. Nor does any need to. And yet --- there this is, all by itself.
I'm not suggesting there's a clear answer here. But I am suggesting it's an open question.

No, i used the word I wanted to.

pre·par·a·to·ry
(prĭ-păr′ə-tôr′ē, -pâr′-, prĕp′ər-ə-)
adj.
1. Serving to make ready or prepare; introductory. See Synonyms at preliminary.

preparatory

Legalistically the usual term is "prefatory clause" but it's a distinction without a difference. Either way it's the same thing whether it "prepares" or "precedes" or both. Neither of which addresses the question of why it exists at all.

 

[Pogo]

Guns is just an object, go after the root cause...

Hear hear. Exactamente.

Liberalism and their quest for a new Sodom and gormorrah .

Again, ironical quip is ironical. Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment.

Indeed, and do you even know what it meant to be a classical liberal? It meant FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT. So, how do you reconcile all the writings of the Founders who ALL say that your interpretation is wrong?

My "interpretation"?

And what "interpretation" might that be?

The STATIST one.

And where is that? Show me a quote.

 

[BlackSand]

Legalistically the usual term is "prefatory clause" but it's a distinction without a difference. Either way it's the same thing whether it "prepares" or "precedes" or both. Neither of which addresses the question of why it exists at all.

"Grandparents should eat cashews; the rights of all people to eat cashews shall not be infringed."

Neither clause eliminates anyone from enjoying cashews ...

.

 

[2aguy]

No..."shall not be infringed:

No "Well Regulated"

See, I can cherry pick rights to.

Now lets take a look at what the Supreme Court decided about your "rights".

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

I love the way you quote this...

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

You do realize that they take for granted that at the time of the prohibitions in some locations on concealed carry, every citizen could open carry guns, everywhere...right? And the only reason they wanted prohibitions on concealed carry at the time was the reasoning at the time that only a criminal would hide their gun.....so....that phrase accepts open carry of guns.......you realize that...right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

State measures such as New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s FSA have thus far withstood their respective court challenges.

And the Supreme Court is content to allow the lower courts to continue to address the constitutionality of state bans and restrictions of AR platform and similar rifles.

Heller/McDonald prohibits comprehensive firearm bans – handguns in particular – and the prohibition of carrying concealed firearms; as long as residents of a given jurisdiction have access to most firearms, banning the possession of specific types of guns is Constitutional.

Almost 10 years after Heller the Second Amendment landscape is as fragmented and balkanized as before the ruling, if not more so.

Meanwhile the killing continues, the political process as inept as the judicial.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It would start with the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of any assault style carbine rifle, and high capacity magazines for rifles or pistols.

Then you pass a law requiring anyone that currently owns any assault style carbine rifles and high capacity magazines for rifles and pistols to be registered. You give everyone 1 year to do it. After that i year grace period, it is now a felony up to 10 years in prison if you get caught with one unregistered.

This allows you pass them on to family after your death, provided those family members can legally register them in their name.

Then the resale of any weapon must be done through a back ground check at the local sheriffs department, where the sale is conducted, or through a licensed dealer that records the sale.

This would take a time frame of about 10 years, before this gun regulation would either have these weapons confiscated and destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people either now in prison, or no longer able to own any gun, and what is left of these rifles and magazines now under wraps by private owners that cannot transfer them to anyone else without facing stiff mandatory sentencing.

It's just that simple.

Of course the whining and crying be vomit worthy for a while. It is much more easy to stomach than the crying of mothers and fathers at their childrens funerals.

Germany did this to the Jews as well... That didnt turn out so good.

Wrong.

‘Whenever the gun-control debate heats up in the United States — usually after an all-too-common mass shooting — guns rights activists often cite Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun laws as an example of the dangers of gun control. They claim that these laws, enacted by Hitler himself, disarmed the German people, including minority groups, and made them more vulnerable to oppression and eventually the Holocaust. This historical “fact” often is trumpeted far and wide as an example of what could happen to America with stricter gun-control laws. The problem with that? It’s mostly a myth.’

Adolf Hitler and the Myth of Nazi Gun Control Laws

May as well repost this from Pravada..



Americans never give up your guns
28 December 2012, 12:15
By Stanislav Mishin


These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt andculturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.


This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.


Americans never give up your guns

 

[Pogo]

Legalistically the usual term is "prefatory clause" but it's a distinction without a difference. Either way it's the same thing whether it "prepares" or "precedes" or both. Neither of which addresses the question of why it exists at all.

"Grandparents should eat cashews; the rights of all people to eat cashews shall not be infringed."

Neither clause eliminates anyone from enjoying cashews ...

.

See, now that makes me wonder why grandparents get special cashew consideration.
Especially seeing as how I'm not a grandparent.

The point still is, a Constitution has no need whatsoever to explain itself; it simply declares. And yet one time --- and one time only ---- it seems to do just that. I wanna know what they were thinking. And until we know by gum I'm gonna chow down on cashews.

 

[BlackSand]

See, now that makes me wonder why grandparents get special cashew consideration.
Especially seeing as how I'm not a grandparent.

The point still is, a Constitution has no need whatsoever to explain itself; it simply declares. And yet one time --- and one time only ---- it seems to do just that. I wanna know what they were thinking. And until we know by gum I'm gonna chow down on cashews.

It doesn't matter why the grandparents were mentioned ... That doesn't disqualify anyone else (including you).
The Constitution isn't trying to explain itself ... You are the one that wants some kind of explanation ... Possibly in hopes it means something it doesn't.

.