Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[Pilot1]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

No, I don't live in fear. Until someone breaks into my house, and tries to harm me, and my family, until then no, my survival does not hinge on firearms. When that happens it does. So, when I can predict when that will happen with enough marging to call the police, and guarantee their arrival, then I will give up my firearms.

Also, when governments demonstrate, they can be 100% non corrupt, and benevolent.

 

[Pop23]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:

In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.

I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.

I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.

Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com

 

[Pogo]

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.

The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.

Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.

Lol, but that’s not what language experts say.

Then again, you’re a proof reader, so what the hell would they know?

Exactly, thank you.

And what "language experts" might these be? Poopdip-boi?

 

[Pogo]

That's correct --- a constitution (any constitution) needs no justification. It is its own justification. Any argument for or against any part of it, would have been exercised in committee, BEFORE its final language was settled upon.

So --- that being the case upon which we are agreed --- what the fuck is the function of this phrase?



See what I mean about "enigma"?

There's no enigma. The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.

That's what an enigma is. It can't be figured out.

Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written. A constitution is no place for riddles.

I answered the question. That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.

No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.

Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.

The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.

I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't tell us how it does.

Again the commas, are irrelevant (see what I just did there?) -- commas in the 1780s simply were not used as strictly, as they are now (just did it again). They were commonly used to set off one long dangling phrase so that it was less likely for the reader to clash with the next phrase. Besides which, if we apply contemporary comma use to that document it doesn't make sense as there are superfluous ones --- which demonstrates again that they were indeed used indiscriminately.

To wit:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary..." << there's no function for that comma other than to "take a breath" which is entirely optional. If you or I wrote that phrase now we would not do so with a comma.

The main point here was the superfluous clause, which seems to somehow want to offer a premise for its reasoning. There's no reason in the world for a constitution to do that, and nowhere else does it happen (we don't read "a well informed Public being necessary to the Exercise of a free Democracy, Congress shall make no Law abridging Freedom of the Press..." --- it simply dives in with "Congress shall make no Law", period). As it should --- It has no need to explain "why". Thus the 2A as finalized looks unfinalized. And/or sloppy work.

 

[danielpalos]

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.

special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.

Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one. My example on punctuation is accurate. And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right. Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right. Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.

just another story, right wingers. all political talk and no political action.

put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.

LMAO!!!! Oh that is hilarious!!! YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions?? On virtually ANY topic?

That is a joke. They DID put it in writing. And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

YOu can call it judicial activism all you want. It is the law of the land.

Proof, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and has to make up stories.


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.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There's no enigma. The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.

The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.

That's what an enigma is. It can't be figured out.

Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written. A constitution is no place for riddles.

I answered the question. That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.

No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.

Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.

The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.

I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.

That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.

 

[danielpalos]

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.

The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.

Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.

To understand why the amendment was written as it was, you have to understand the political climate at the time. Some of the states were violently opposed to a standing army. They even passed laws to keep them out of their state. They believed voluntary militias should be used to defend the country The 2nd amendment was written to gain the support of those states. States in favor of militias interpreted the amendment to mean the federal government was guaranteeing that citizens would have right to bear arms so they could serve in the militia.

FYI, the Supreme Court overturned the DC gun control based on the fact that there was second comma in the 2nd amendment. So courts certain pay attention to punctuation because it changes the meaning of the text.

Not in the case of our Second Amendment; there is no change in context, theme, or any Thing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.

special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.

Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one. My example on punctuation is accurate. And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right. Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right. Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.

just another story, right wingers. all political talk and no political action.

put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.

LMAO!!!! Oh that is hilarious!!! YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions?? On virtually ANY topic?

That is a joke. They DID put it in writing. And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

YOu can call it judicial activism all you want. It is the law of the land.

Proof, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and has to make up stories.


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.

And your posts are proof you cannot answer direct questions.

And the 2nd actually reads "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."

Feel free to keep pretending that punctuation does not matter and that judicial activism is the reason the 2nd Amendment is known as an individual right. It doesn't matter. It is still an individual right under the laws of the land.

 

[Pogo]

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.

The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.

Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.

Funny.

The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.

Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.

C'mon, hook a brutha up. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.

As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".

And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.

Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.

Context my good man, context.

"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".

When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.

Enigma.

 

[danielpalos]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:

In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.

I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.

I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.

Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com

this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.

 

[danielpalos]

The fact that you can't answer the question, affirms the enigma.

That's what an enigma is. It can't be figured out.

Ergo my point stands --- it's poorly written. A constitution is no place for riddles.

I answered the question. That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.

No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.

Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.

The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.

I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.

That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as law, in our Republic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I answered the question. That the answer eludes your understanding is not surprising.

No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.

Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.

The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.

I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.

That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as law, in our Republic.

Please make sense so that I can respond.

 

[danielpalos]

special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.

Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one. My example on punctuation is accurate. And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right. Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right. Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.

just another story, right wingers. all political talk and no political action.

put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.

LMAO!!!! Oh that is hilarious!!! YOu have the gall to post that after continually refusing to answer questions?? On virtually ANY topic?

That is a joke. They DID put it in writing. And those who understand english, understand that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

YOu can call it judicial activism all you want. It is the law of the land.

Proof, the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, and has to make up stories.


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.

And your posts are proof you cannot answer direct questions.

And the 2nd actually reads "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."

Feel free to keep pretending that punctuation does not matter and that judicial activism is the reason the 2nd Amendment is known as an individual right. It doesn't matter. It is still an individual right under the laws of the land.

I don't have to pretend; i wrote it down, not just tell you a story about it.

 

[Pop23]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:

In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.

I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.

I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.

Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com

this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.

Did I say it wasn't speculation? It must be speculative as outcomes of "what if's" always are, but to speculate as to one outcome is just as relavent in a discussion as the next. However; it is the VICTIMS perspective that take precedent over the arm chair quarterback.

 

[danielpalos]

No, you did not. No one can answer it.
If it could be answered, it wouldn't be an enigma, now would it.

We already agreed a constitution has no need to argue its case. Yet here's a subordinate clause appearing to do just that. Clearly that cannot be its function, as no adversarial argue-party exists to "convince".

Since that cannot be its function --- what is?

No one knows. You don't know. I don't know. Don't nobody know.
But here's what we do know --- when a constitution contains an extraneous clause for no discernible reason, it's "poorly written". Unless you think that in writing the Constitution the Founders were simply playing word jumble games with us.

Now we're talking about how well the constitution is written and were the founders playing word games. The right to bear arms depends on where the founders put a comma in the 2nd amendment according the courts. The guys who wrote the constitution had no idea how to run a country and for some strange reason we think they had great insight in how the country should be run over 200 years later. This is nuts.

The fact is we don't need a constitution as such. We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedoms and we need laws and rules for running the goverment. "Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, keeps us from debating the merits of divisive issues, and inflames public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. The whole process is bizarre.

I don't believe the Founders were playing word games. That's my sarcastic rejoinder to Billy Klownetta who tries to tell me that clause makes sense yet can't make sense of it.

That it does not make sense to you is of absolutely no consequence. It's made sense to all Americans for nearly 250 years despite the ill-fated mid-20th Century attempt to reinterpret it in favor of increasing government authority over the issue. It continues to make sense today with the recent reiteration of the original meaning by the SCOTUS in the Heller ruling.

Only Congress can write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as law, in our Republic.

Please make sense so that I can respond.

Usually, Only the right wing is this, clueless and this Causeless.

And, why nobody on the left, should Ever take them seriously about Civics.

 

[danielpalos]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:

In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.

I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.

I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.

Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com

this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.

Did I say it wasn't speculation? It must be speculative as outcomes of "what if's" always are, but to speculate as to one outcome is just as relavent in a discussion as the next. However; it is the VICTIMS perspective that take precedent over the arm chair quarterback.

speculation of what the victim, thought she may be able to do, with a gun.

 

[Pogo]

The primary reason people have guns is to kill other people that have guns. The secondary reason is to kill animals. It's all about the need kill.

Well, I am good with not killing anything, animals or robbers. Or being killed , either by hoodlums with guns. Take away their guns, and they are just nothing...Taking away their guns, now there within lies the crux of the biscuit. We have maniacs that enable criminals that swear by their holier than thou sacrosanct 2nd Amendment. The Constitution has been amended before, so what's the big deal now?

Just let the criminals do what they want? And let invasive species of animals wreck the environment? Or have animals overpopulate due to lack of predation, and then die a slow death from starvation & disease? All so you can relax with a false sense of safety?

I believe what Mary's articulating there is the philosophy of Ahimsa. To which I subscribe as well. That goes all the way back to how one views one's world -- as a comprehensive Universe of which one is a humble and harmonious part,or as a lethal struggle one must continually fend off and vanquish.

 

[Pop23]

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in punctuation from a 200+ year old document, and I'm a proofreader. Commas were used more or less indiscriminately in that less-linguistically refined period, which also displays the old German practice of capitalizing nouns ("Militia"... Security"... "State"... etc). Language evolves over time, and the "proper" use of a comma and what it means or doesn't mean wasn't nearly as meticulously defined as it came to be.

The adjective "prefatory" though, is pure absolute snow-job bullshit. All "prefatory" means is that it "comes before" or "introduces" another part (as in preface). We can already see that it come first, so "prefatory" tells us absolutely nothing of what its function is. And that's an enigma; the introductory phrase "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State" has no discernible reason to exist. A Constitution has no need to argue its case for why it sets out what it does; it simply declares "these are the rules". There's no point in rationalizing the Amendment as if it were part of some debate, nor does any other Amendment do so (nor should it), so the presence of the clause remains a head-scratcher.

Ultimately the presence of a subordinate clause that seems to want to argue its existence looks like either sloppy or unfinished work, or both. If it's intended as a limitation, which is the only conceivable direction it would have wanted to go, then it's poorly written as such.

Funny.

The only people who think it's "poorly written" are those who want their misinterpretation accepted.

Fine -- then why don't you be the first person in the history of this nation, right here on USMB --- to essplain to the class why a Constitution would need to justify itself as if it's posting on a message board.

C'mon, hook a brutha up. "Prefatory" won't do it --- we already know WHERE the clause is. What we want to know is WHY it is.

As I said, I don't have an 'interpretation'. As I said, it's an enigma. Nobody has an interpretation. Hence --- "poorly written".

And as long as we're on the subject, a Court explaining it as a "prefatory" clause is also "poorly written". That's just unmitigated bullshit dancing around a question it can't answer either.

Then, you beg the question as to why it exists anyway, especially within the section of the document that outlines the rights of individuals.

Context my good man, context.

"Why it exists" is indeed the question. The context is a constitution, which is the framework for how the operation is going to run. That makes it a simple declaration with no need whatsoever of appealing its arguments. It has no need at all to "explain why".

When you sit down to write a constitution, you sweat over every word, since you expect it to be taken seriously by generations. Therefore no part of what we read can be there by accident. Many sets of eyes read it and revised it before it got signed. Therefore it's intentional. But that lands us in the riddle --- if it's intentional, what then is its function? No one knows. It seems to set a qualification for the point it eventually gets to. What is its status in the event that qualification is not met? We do not know, for we are not told.

Enigma.

If what you write is correct, and they wanted to be taken seriously for generations, and they wanted those generations to understand that the right to keep and bear arms was limited, they could have easily, and without it being controversial as to intent, produced an amendment that read any number of ways:

Examples being:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of its soldiers to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people in the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people, while in service of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

or simply

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State must be established.

None of the above are true, which begs the question. If the intent was that only those that were in such a Militia were to be afforded a right which could not be infringed, why they wouldn't have just said so?

 

[Pop23]

I like guns overall, I do. But WE can do just fine without them too. Anyone here think their sole survival hinges on firearms ?

Doesn't really matter what you think. Lets look at what a survivor of a brutal rape thinks. Her rape likely happened because of do gooders like you taking advantage of the idea that law abiding citizens will obey the law:

In college eight years ago, I was raped in a parking garage only feet from the campus police office.

I could see the police cruisers parked for the night as this stranger raped me, pistol to my head. I knew no one was coming to help me.

I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims.
At the time of my attack, I had a Nevada concealed carry permit. But in Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As someone who obeys the law, I left my firearm at home when I went to school. The law that was meant to safeguard me – the gun-free zone – only guaranteed I would be defenseless.

Eventually the man was caught, tried and convicted – not just for using a gun in gun-free zone, but also for raping two other women and murdering one. My attacker was not a student, nor did he have a concealed-carry weapon permit.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d had my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: I feel certain that I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Source: Why I Would Have Liked to Have My Weapon With Me in College - NYTimes.com

this is speculation; the other girl probably thought the same thing; and now he has her gun as well.

Did I say it wasn't speculation? It must be speculative as outcomes of "what if's" always are, but to speculate as to one outcome is just as relavent in a discussion as the next. However; it is the VICTIMS perspective that take precedent over the arm chair quarterback.

speculation of what the victim, thought she may be able to do, with a gun.

Or speculation that, once the weapon was drawn, and the rapist saw he didn't have an easy target, what wouldn't have happened. It is common knowledge that rapists rape, nearly 100% of the time when, 1.) they have a weaker target. The gun makes his odds less. 2.) when he thinks he can get away unharmed or with limited damage.

Those are not speculative.

 

[Pogo]

If the 2nd amendment was meant as the left says it was........

WHY THE HELL WOULD IT APPEAR IN THE BILL IF RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Clue, it wouldn’t

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.

The stupidity here is unbelievable.

What is the militia?

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

This is a case of what philosopher Tim McCarver calls Paralysis through Analysis. If the intention was to make such a distinction, they would have done it with something juuuuust a little bit clearer than a comma -- they would have spelled it out as such. They had no 140 character limitation.

Distinctions and exceptions are articulated thusly:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ... "​

--- there's an exception, with an exception to the exception, spelled out with words, not commas. Trying to hang a selective interpretation on whether there's a comma here or not a comma there, is just reaching and venturing into fabrication.