The Second Amendment Was A Failure From The Start, And Should Have Been Repealed 200 Years Ago

[BLUE COLLAR]

It doesn't give a reason for the right.
It doesn't give a reason for the right to free speech either..

Sure, it gives a reason for the people's right. It's expressed in the prefatory clause.

Free Speech is not in the 2ndA though I appreciate that you meant the Constitution. And, you are correct, unlike the 2ndA there is no prefatory clause in the 1stA. The rights are simply elaborated.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I accept your concession, that you have no meaningful response to what I said.
Thus, your argument, negated.

Your statement, above, is a lie.

I made several concessions to you over the past few pages, but the dishonesty that you express above was not one of them. Please don't put words in my mouth. You are not very good at it.

Regarding what you call a lie, let's just call it a difference of opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I made several concessions to you over the past few pages, but the dishonesty that you express above was not one of them.

Fact remains:
You know you cannot meaningfully address the criticisms I laid out against your argument; your refusal to even try amounts in every way to your concession of those criticisms.
Thus, I accept your concession.

Regarding what you call a lie, let's just call it a difference of opinion.

You know your statement is false. Thus, a lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure, it gives a reason for the people's right. It's expressed in the prefatory clause.

It doesn't give a reason.
It doesn't say the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms is to be in a militia.
Or because we might need them in a militia.
It says we need to protect their right, because we need a militia.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Fact remains:
You know you cannot meaningfully address the criticisms I laid out against your argument; your refusal to even try amounts in every way to your concession of those criticisms.
Thus, I accept your concession.

You know your statement is false. Thus, a lie.

What a fucking bore.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It doesn't give a reason.
It doesn't say the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms is to be in a militia.
Or because we might need them in a militia.
It says we need to protect their right, because we need a militia.

A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause. Don't take my word; do a google.

A sentence can have multiple prefatory clauses which could include some of the items on your wish list, but the founders chose to include only the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause. Don't take my word; do a google.

A sentence can have multiple prefatory clauses which could include some of the items on your wish list, but the founders chose to include only the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

The reason that the right shall not be infringed is because a militia is necessary.

 

[2aguy]

The above post is humorous in the fact that it commits the very sin which it charges. It does so in spades. There isn't a single sentence that addresses the topic of this thread other than in belching empty opinions of me.

That said, I'll be happy to briefly explain my position on the grammar of the singular sentence that is the 2ndA.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is a complex sentence consisting of two clauses: a prefatory (dependent clause), and the main clause (independent). By independent it does not mean that the main clause stands on its own. It means (grammatically) that it could stand on its own if one wished to remove the prefatory clause but that would change what the founders meant. Had it been their intent to simply convey the right to possess and bear arms, the founders could have simply used the independent clause. THEY DID NOT!

In short, I read the whole sentence while some choose to ignore or demote the prefatory clause.

As for M14, we've butt heads several times on various topics and levels. If you have a problem with something I wrote in one of those exchanges, spell it out. Put some hair on your fucking point.

Scalia writes about that in the Heller decision...you should try to read it.....or have someone else read it to you....

1. Operative Clause.



a. “Right of the People.”



The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

-----------

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

----

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

--------

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

-----

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

---

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.



------

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

---

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

----

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

----

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[2aguy]

A prefatory clause states a reason or purpose for the operative clause. Don't take my word; do a google.

A sentence can have multiple prefatory clauses which could include some of the items on your wish list, but the founders chose to include only the necessity of a well-regulated militia.

And then specifically stated the Right of the People, shall not be infringed, not the Right of a militia to keep arms...

 

[Orangecat]

OMG, I've broken the timing rule as set down by a gutless pussy.

Sorry, but I only sporadically jump into the mud with punk-ass flamers like you.

Let it go, kid. We disagree on gun control regulations.
If you want to fight, find me in a fresh thread.
This one is done.

Oh, and GFY.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Scalia writes about that in the Heller decision...you should try to read it.....or have someone else read it to you....

The next time you decide to question someone's reading ability in a conversation that is heavily laden with issues of language and grammar, you might want to start with your duck's in order. Above, you misapplied the use of an ellipsis three times in a single line.

As for your cut and paste, I'm not here for reading assignments. If there is an aspect of Scalia's Opinion on which you wish to comment, spit it out and I'll be happy to respond.

1. Operative Clause.



a. “Right of the People.”



The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

-----------

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

----

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

--------

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

-----

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

---

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.



------

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

---

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

----

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

----

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

The Second Amendment was a massive success for another important reason:

It was part of the famed bill of rights. Those 10 Amendments needed to become a component part of the Constitution in order to even GET the Constitution ratified.

OBVIOUSLY, therefore, the 2d Amendment was an enormous — MASSIVE — success.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Let it go, kid. We disagree on gun control regulations.
If you want to fight, find me in a fresh thread.
This one is done.

Oh, and GFY.

I agree that we disagree.

Regarding GFY, I'm guessing this to be some sort of sick projection. You must be very limber.

Btw, YCS&FBII

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

And then specifically stated the Right of the People, shall not be infringed, not the Right of a militia to keep arms...

Yes, it did do as you describe after qualifying that the purpose was a well-regulated militia.

Now, if we could just figure to where the militia, and regulations, disappeared.

 

[Orangecat]

I agree that we disagree.

Regarding GFY, I'm guessing this to be some sort of sick projection. You must be very limber.

Btw, YCS&FBII

 

[Orangecat]

The next time you decide to question someone's reading ability in a conversation that is heavily laden with issues of language and grammar, you might want to start with your duck's in order.

The best comedy writes itself.

 

[woodwork201]

What does the 2ndA say is the reason for the people's right to possess and bear? Do the terms individual right and the right of the people automatically refer to the same thing? Does the 2ndA specifically say anything about individual rights, about anything outside of the necessity to a militia?

First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the reason for the people's right to possess and bear arms. It doesn't talk about the people's right to possess and bear arms except to say that it shall not be infringed. It clearly limits the power to infringe on a right that exists outside of the 2nd Amendment.

It doesn't matter what it says in the prefatory clause or why it says it. The operative clause is explicit: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[woodwork201]

You ask like this has not been repeatedly and soundly addressed.

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Please demonstrate this to be unsound.

Why are you participating in this conversation? You've already stated that the government can do whatever it wants in restricting people's access to guns. You can't have it both ways.

 

[2aguy]

The next time you decide to question someone's reading ability in a conversation that is heavily laden with issues of language and grammar, you might want to start with your duck's in order. Above, you misapplied the use of an ellipsis three times in a single line.

As for your cut and paste, I'm not here for reading assignments. If there is an aspect of Scalia's Opinion on which you wish to comment, spit it out and I'll be happy to respond.

Yep…….you are shown exactly why you are wrong and you play games to hide it…..

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The best comedy writes itself.

I invoke the typo defense that you used earlier in this thread. However, repeating the same mistake three times in the span of less than two dozen words is not a typo. Rather, it signifies an ignorance.

In Post #590 you pronounced this thread to be done, but here you are again. You are such a fucking liar.