- Mar 7, 2014
- Reaction score
I agree that the Intent and Purpose clause cannot be ignored or separated from that which it limits.I understand you simply know nothing about the law. You cannot ignore the first clause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.Who is ignoring the first clause?Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument? You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you? But now you profess to be an authority on the English language? Really?
Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.
My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.
A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
The word "being" is a form of the verb "is." You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.
A well regulated militia IS necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.
in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.
Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.
Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?
Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying? You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.
Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
Each state has different firearm needs and concerns, so it is not a federal matter in any way.
And many federal firearm laws, like prohibiting firearm ownership to ex-felons, seems totally illegal to me.
Not true. The 2A prevents the feds from stopping individuals from having arms. It doesn't stop them limiting which arms they can have. As long as individuals can get their hands on arms are "reasonable" prices, then they can do what they like.
They can even ban people getting nukes. Shock horror.