Salon article: US founded on gun control? Madison/2nd Amendment meant state militias?

[Pogo]

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

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.

Only well regulated militia are claimed necessary and the unorganized militia must yield to well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

 

[Pogo]

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

"to make it clear"?

There's no such element in a Constitution. A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period". It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points. It is not a debate. There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.

And indeed, no other Amenment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so. The statements are direct and to the point: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house...."; "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on. NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point. The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.

Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc". Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.

Yet here we have the 2A --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning? What for? That should have already been done. Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree. Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally. Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.

If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows. There's no other reason for it to be there.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militias are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

It is the legislature that has to prescribe wellness of regulation for State militias.

It’s a good thing you don’t make laws, your ignorance is astounding.

Projecting much, right wingers. Our Second Amendment says what it is about, in the first clause, not the second clause.

Dear danielpalos
if the Second Amendment required govt regulation through state militias as a requirement for individuals
to keep and bear arms, then Texas and Texans would never have agreed to join the Union.
No Texan I know would give up their individual rights to federal controls of state militias.

However, the natural law that gives human beings "free exercise of religion"
allows for liberals like you to believe in govt controls of gun regulations and state militias,
similar to your belief that health care is a natural right.
That belief is your right to exercise under freedom of religion.

Otherwise, liberals like you would never agree to live in the same country
under the same laws as people who believe in individual gun rights outside state militias.
Clearly Constitutional principles allow people of all beliefs to coexist peacefully by agreeing
NOT to impose on each other's beliefs through govt. And looking at the Second Amendment,
it is written in such a way that BOTH sides can use it to express their opposite beliefs.

Free exercise of religion covers both beliefs.
You have no right to abuse govt to dictate your beliefs by law,
by the very First Amendment principle that defends your equal right to your own beliefs.

Can we agree to respect each other's beliefs equally,
in keeping with equal protection of the laws?

That is not the point of our Second Amendment. The point, is in the First clause, not the Second clause.

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. That line of reasoning is pure judicial activism and legislation from the bench. Only Congress may do that.

Not that I think you'd ever come out of your little safe space and wrongheaded beliefs, but frankly; you don't know what your talking about.

Read this and then take a few years to reflect on your sins.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

The People are the militia.

 

[westwall]

You're ignoring the words of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Great American Patriots. Why are their words humorous to you?

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

 

[danielpalos]

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

 

[LOki]

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

"to make it clear"?

Yes. Precisely.

There's no such element in a Constitution. A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period". It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points. It is not a debate. There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.

Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.

I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.

I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, " A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."

And indeed, no other Amenment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.

That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.

The statements are direct and to the point: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house...."; "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on. NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point. The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.

Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.

There's just no fathoming what got your little panties all bunched up.

Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc". Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.

You present this as a counter to which point that I made?

Can you be specific?

No?

Why don't you put your pecker away, mmmk?

Yet here we have the 2A --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?

Oh. You're saying I said this?

What other assertions have I made in your ridiculous imagination?

What for?

I have no idea, Cupcake. This is your story, not mine.

That should have already been done. Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree. Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally. Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.

So then it IS clear: no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.

Good.

If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows. There's no other reason for it to be there.

Oh. You think it DOES set conditions upon the exercise of the right. Well, not only have you nicely contradicted yourself, your actual point is entirely self-destructive.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire Amendment) repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.

 

[Pogo]

it is your fallacy of false cause that I find humorous.

Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land.

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

Good answer to a question I never asked. If I could dodge like that I'd be an NFL running back.

 

[Pogo]

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

"to make it clear"?

Yes. Precisely.

There's no such element in a Constitution. A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period". It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points. It is not a debate. There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.

Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.

I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.

I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, " A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."

Aaaahhhhhmmmm... the Bill of Rights is exactly what I just quoted in that post several times Princess. Guess I assumed you'd recognize it and it wouldn't need explanation. I misoverestimated you. Would you like to borrow my copy?

And indeed, no other Amendment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.

That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I just noted. The question is WHY they would do that. A question that remains untouched.

The statements are direct and to the point: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house...."; "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on. NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point. The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.

Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.

Wow, you think the universe revolves around you huh?

No Jingles, you're not suggesting the idea that the dependent clause sets conditions on the second --- that would be me.
I'm asking specifically, if that is not its purpose --- then what IS its purpose. The same question that remains the same degree of untouched.

And please, don't come waggling "prefatory" up in here thinking you're gonna snow people with what looks like a legal term. All prefatory means is that it's at the beginning-- an introduction, a preface (and it has an R in it -- learn to spell). We all know perfectly well WHERE it is; the question on the table, untouched, is WHY it is.

There's just no fathoming what got your little panties all bunched up.

"Panties"? Hey I'm just watching you make pretzels.

Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc". Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.

You present this as a counter to which point that I made?

Can you be specific?

Again when you receive my copy of the Bill of Rights you'll notice that what I did there was modify the First Amendment into a model of what the Second actually looks like. That's what 1A would look like if it took the time and trouble to list a justification of itself first. Obviously the present Amendment does not do that, as it does not need to. NONE of the Amendments do that ---except the Second.

Hence the question. Untouched.

Why don't you put your pecker away, mmmk?

Perhaps you should close USMB before you write these "notes to self" while surfing porn. Just an idea.

Yet here we have the 2A --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?

Oh. You're saying I said this?

What other assertions have I made in your ridiculous imagination?

There you go again --- "me me me". What are you, a singer?

What for?

I have no idea, Cupcake. This is your story, not mine.

It's not a "story", Ice Cream Cone -- it's an analysis, leading to a question. You know, the untouched one. The one you can't handle.

That should have already been done. Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree. Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally. Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.

So then it IS clear: no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.

Good.

Good or not -- it's still not the question is it.

If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows. There's no other reason for it to be there.

Oh. You think it DOES set conditions upon the exercise of the right. Well, not only have you nicely contradicted yourself, your actual point is entirely self-destructive.

What "contradiction" would that be, Hunior?

I don't know if it sets conditions or not, and if it does I'm not clear what they are. That's why I put the question out as to what that clause's function is. That's why I noted in my first post here that it's a train wreck of writing. It can't be interpreted. But have a go if you think you can handle it. You know, instead of running away from it.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire Amendment) repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.

Ipse dixit is fun when you have no reasoning. I guess.

That about it now? You done whining that I dared to pose a question that you can't answer?
Isn't that 'special'.

 

[westwall]

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

 

[westwall]

The words of founding fathers isn't "false cause", whatever that means. I agree the second amendment is the supreme law of the land. We just disagree on what it means. I believe it means exactly what our founding fathers said it means. You don't.

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

Good answer to a question I never asked. If I could dodge like that I'd be an NFL running back.

Then I suggest you take a remedial English class because I did indeed answer your question.

 

[danielpalos]

The intent and purpose is in the first clause not the second clause.

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

 

[LOki]

The dependent clause in the second only serves to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people, as the possession of such arms are prerequisite for a well-regulated militia--the precise militia, BTW, which the federal government is constitutionally empowered to draw upon to assure the security of a free state.

"to make it clear"?

Yes. Precisely.

There's no such element in a Constitution. A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period". It has no need whatsoever to explain its reasoning that led to any of its points. It is not a debate. There is no element of "dialogue" in it --- it's a direct assertion.

Well, that right there is an interesting denial of reality.

I might suggest to you, that you become aquainted with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and precisely why it was brought forth.

I'm pretty sure you've never heard of it, and I'm certain that if you had, you'd declare that it is entirely unnecessary since, " A Constitution is a flat declaration of the Rules --- "this is how things will work, period"."

Aaaahhhhhmmmm... the Bill of Rights is exactly what I just quoted in that post several times Princess.

Well then, there's just no explaining why you're so confused.

Guess I assumed you'd recognize it and it wouldn't need explanation.

Oh, I recognized it just fine, it was apparent that you didn't, however.

I misoverestimated you. Would you like to borrow my copy?

Between you and I, I'm not the one confused by the existence of the Bill of Rights.

And indeed, no other Amendment, no other section in the Bill of Rights, takes such a tangent to do so.

That deosn't mean the authors of the amendment didn't didn't see the need to make a particular point in this one respect.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I just noted. The question is WHY they would do that. A question that remains untouched.

What question? Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

The statements are direct and to the point: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... "; "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house...."; "The right of the People to be secure in their person.... shall not be violated..." and so on. NONE of them take a diversion to explain conditions; they simply get right to the point. The question of "why" is not present at all, nor does it need to be.

Cool story bro. I OBVIOUSLY wasn't making any kind of point that the pefatory clause was setting conditions upon the excercise of the right.

Wow, you think the universe revolves around you huh?

No. But you did blockquote my post, right? ... excuse me for assuming you were attempting to address something you thought I said.

Dick.

No Jingles, you're not suggesting the idea that the dependent clause sets conditions on the second --- that would be me.
I'm asking specifically, if that is not its purpose --- then what IS its purpose. The same question that remains the same degree of untouched.

Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

And please, don't come waggling "prefatory" up in here thinking you're gonna snow people with what looks like a legal term. All prefatory means is that it's at the beginning-- an introduction, a preface (and it has an R in it -- learn to spell). We all know perfectly well WHERE it is; the question on the table, untouched, is WHY it is.

Well, as it turns out, the legal priority placed upon the preforatory clause is determined by it's grammatical dependency upon the main, independent clause of the Amendement.

And as far as the "question" is concerned, do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

Ergo the First Amendment does not read, "A free and open discourse being necessary to the exercise of a healthy democracy, Congress shall make no law..... etc". Nor does it have any reason to since the merits of each point have already been argued in committees, and the eventual Constitution represents the decisions the parties agreed to.

You present this as a counter to which point that I made?

Can you be specific?

Again when you receive my copy of the Bill of Rights you'll notice that what I did there was modify the First Amendment into a model of what the Second actually looks like. That's what 1A would look like if it took the time and trouble to list a justification of itself first. Obviously the present Amendment does not do that, as it does not need to. NONE of the Amendments do that ---except the Second.

Your faulty presumption, in direct contradiction to all your discussion regarding "...{being} argued in committees...", is that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to present any kind of "justification" at all.

Hence the question. Untouched.

Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

Yet here we have the 2A --- all by itself unlike any other Amendment, appearing to plead its reasoning?

Oh. You're saying I said this?

What other assertions have I made in your ridiculous imagination?

There you go again --- "me me me". What are you, a singer?

No. But you did blockquote my post... excuse me for assuming you were attempting to address somethig you thought I said.

Dick.

What for?

I have no idea, Cupcake. This is your story, not mine.

It's not a "story", Ice Cream Cone -- it's an analysis, leading to a question. You know, the untouched one. The one you can't handle.

Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make it clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

That should have already been done. Yet there it is in print, in legal language that's been parsed and agonized over to the nth degree. Whatever its function is, it's there intentionally. Nobody signed off on it without knowing it was there, exactly as worded.

So then it IS clear: no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.

Good.

Good or not -- it's still not the question is it.

No. It's the answer to your question.

You're welcome.

Again.

If it's not there as a basis of reasoning to justify itself --- which in a Constitution would be entirely superfluous --- then it must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows. There's no other reason for it to be there.

Oh. You think it DOES set conditions upon the exercise of the right. Well, not only have you nicely contradicted yourself, your actual point is entirely self-destructive.

What "contradiction" would that be, Hunior?

The contradiction where you suggest the right required a "justification" and "conditional" meets "shall not be infringed."

Rights do not require justification, and "conditional" is antithetical to "shall not be infringed."

It's really rather obvious, isn't it?

I don't know if it sets conditions or not, and if it does I'm not clear what they are. That's why I put the question out as to what that clause's function is. That's why I noted in my first post here that it's a train wreck of writing. It can't be interpreted. But have a go if you think you can handle it. You know, instead of running away from it.

Well Mr. Then-it-must-be-intended-as-a-dependent-clause-setting-conditions-on-what-follows, you seem pretty certain that the prefatory clause must be intended as a dependent clause setting conditions on what follows.

Between us, it's pretty clear that I'm not confused about what you're driving at.

As far as your question is concerned, let point out that your question is answered by the observation that the purpose of the preforatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people.

You're welcome.

Again.

Any interpretation of, or assignment of priority to, the dependent clause of the 2nd Amendment which renders it (or the entire Amendment) repugnant to itself is inherently (and obviously) invalid.

Ipse dixit is fun when you have no reasoning. I guess.

On what planet is pointing out that a self-contradicting assertion is logically invalid considered unfounded?

Your planet?

That about it now? You done whining that I dared to pose a question that you can't answer?
Isn't that 'special'.

Do you mean the question answered by the observation that the purpose of the prefatory clause is to make clear that no arms suitable for a federal soldier can be denied to the people? Was it that question?

If so, your question was not only "touched" upon, it was handled sufficiently to declare it resolved.

You're welcome.

Again.

 

[xyz]

Yo, Emily, the "Socialist Democrat Party" will never stop trying to take guns from the citizens, it`s only one of their many Agenda`s!!! They want total control of the people, without weapons, we`re totally screwed!!! Salon, it`s a subsidiary of the Socialist Democrat Party, simple!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 166443

It is highly unlikely they would be able to, at most they might stop certain types of guns from being sold and have stricter background checks.

 

[westwall]

Only on a planet where English is a fifth language. On this planet it is the second clause that matters. That's how the English language works.

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

 

[danielpalos]

The second clause is indeed where the action is, agreed.

That still leaves the question open --- what then is the purpose of the first clause? Why does it exist?

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

 

[BS Filter]

Simple. No regulation against firearms in any way is allowed as that would inhibit them being in good working order. No controls on ammunition, or the components thereof are allowed as that would prevent the militia from carrying out its duty.

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

 

[danielpalos]

What happens in Any conflict of laws?

Which collective of Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; well regulated militia or the unorganized militia.

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

 

[BS Filter]

NO ONE may be infringed upon. That's the whole point. Government doesn't need protections from itself, that is an asinine assertion. The PEOPLE are who are being protected.....FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Only in right wing legal fantasy. The intent and purpose is in the first clause.

The Courts have all said you are wrong, so I will leave you with that. According to the English language you are wrong, and according to the Courts you are wrong. Basically, you and your fellow progressives are whistling to the wind. Enjoy.

So what. Only Congress may pass legislation and have it enacted as law.

Judicial activism, is simply that.

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause not the second clause, for the militia of the United States.

So you're claiming the second claus isn't there. It has always intrigued me that some people that can read and write will deny what is in plain sight. I think it's called "indoctrination".

The People are the Militia; the first clause is the Intent and Purpose and End, not the means.

Then I have the right to own guns. I'm part of "the people" as you claim. Correct?

 

[miketx]

The problem with the 2A is its vague dangling dependent clause-like prequel: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State...."

Leaving aside what is meant by "well regulated Militia", the odd introductory phrase implies, though does not explicitly state, that it is the reasoning behind what follows. Even if one accepts that the phrase exists to justify what follows, it still remains the only Amendment in the Constitution that contains such a basis. No other Amendment sees a need to justify itself, nor does a constitution require any --- it simply declares "this is how we will roll". No argument needs to be made --- yet, here's an Amendment, all by itself, making an argument.

It's just odd. Looks grossly unfinished.

Another falsehood from the regressive left.