LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...
I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.
LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...
I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.
Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.
Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?
Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?
Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.
I don't recall the NRA ever saying anything about race.Want all this to stop. Get a group together to teach black people to legally own firearms in the hood and suburbs.This happened under reagan and he lost his damn mind. I wonder what the nra would say to a campaign to raise the numbers of black inner city folks legally carrying fire arms. That makes me smile.
LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...
I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.
Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.
Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?
Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?
Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.
I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.
The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?
This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.
But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?
First version, passed by Congress:
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.
Version ratified by the states:
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.
Just bad writing?
Yeah but then they would not have the "shout" out to the milita that had just won the war, now would they? And that right there may be the best answer to the riddle. They put in the prefatory clause as a shout out to the militia for whom they were grateful.
LOL - I have a sinking feeling that best use of time would not be served here by dragging the rest of the Amendments into the ring...
I don't need that kind of out; I have no interest in "finding what I want" in 2A. I don't have an agenda; I just question. Whether or not my guns can be taken away I really don't care. I just like to argue logic. The wages of Catholic school I guess.
Fair enough. Either it is a restriction, wherein the feds can't restrict a well regulated state militia, or it's a prefatory declarative clause as evidenced by the word "being" which is the present participle of "be" ... to be or not to be... being is the answer in this case.. it is no more or less exactly what it says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. In past tense, A well regulated militia has been necessary to the security of a free state. In future tense, A well regulated militia will be necessary to the security of a free state.
Note it does not say, or imply, A well regulated militia will not be infringed, nor does it say the security of a free state shall not be infringed. It clearly applies the shall not be infringed on the action of the subject of the second clause. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note it does not say the people in a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state does it?
Note the second clause does not say the right of the people in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does it?
Theretofore, having exhausted all other possibilities, one is left with the first part of the sentence being a prefatory clause that explains why the people will remain armed. Well one of two. There's another explanation in the constitution as well. Remember we are talking about a people who had just revolted from it's government. It wanted to make sure the people would not once again come under rule of a tyrant government.
I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.
The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?
This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.
But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?
First version, passed by Congress:
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.
Version ratified by the states:
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.
Just bad writing?
Punctuation is everything. The classic example: "Let's eat, Grandma!" versus "Let's eat Grandma!"
Now they could have used the same words and set it up like this:
II. 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.
We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...
OK, now you're r e a l l y stretching. But that's funny. 
I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.
The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?
This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.
But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?
First version, passed by Congress:
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.
Version ratified by the states:
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.
Just bad writing?
Punctuation is everything. The classic example: "Let's eat, Grandma!" versus "Let's eat Grandma!"
Now they could have used the same words and set it up like this:
II. 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.
We wouldn't be having this discussion at all...
You cannot and shall not remove
I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.
The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?
This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.
But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?
First version, passed by Congress:
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.
Version ratified by the states:
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.
Just bad writing?
No it's very good writing. No the word "since" or "because" are not there. Therefore while it may read that way to one that does not know what a prefatory clause is, it's only necessary to imagine it there if you don't know what a prefatory clause is. However, if you do know what a prefatory clause is, the because/since word is not necessary in the 2nd amendment.
Aww, Dave feels left out being that he doesn't know what we're talking about.
Want to play, Dave?'
Explain that comma after "Militia".
I don't see any doubt that the government IS restricted from infringing on a militia (I know, that's five negatives. ouch). I think that part is clear. As I read it, being is present tense, not past or future, but acknowledging a condition that exists now. It's used in the sense of "Since a well regulated militia is necessary...". It's acknowledged as a given.
The way I see our question here is this: being that they're articulating that and pointing it out specifically, is it not logical to infer that that named condition (the militia) is exactly the entity to whom the right is addressed? If it's not intended that way -- then why bring it up?
This is my point: if it's a qualifier, it seems to restrict the right to the militia. If it's a prefatory, then all it does is blur the meaning. I see only one way that adds up. But granted, either way it's badly written.
But speaking of which, since you're obviously articulate, what do you think about the moving of the comma?
First version, passed by Congress:
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.
Version ratified by the states:
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.
Just bad writing?
No it's very good writing. No the word "since" or "because" are not there. Therefore while it may read that way to one that does not know what a prefatory clause is, it's only necessary to imagine it there if you don't know what a prefatory clause is. However, if you do know what a prefatory clause is, the because/since word is not necessary in the 2nd amendment.
I'm hip. That's what I keep saying. So why is it there?
"Being" in this usage is the equivalent of "whereas". Can't be interpreted as past or future; it's a present condition.
You don't NEED an explanation. If you want that law you just declare " the right of the people to keep and bear cell phones shall not be infringed". Include the "well-managed system" qualifier, and it sure looks to me like you're legislating not what the people can have, but how the cell phone company has to operate.
Sorry, you're really not selling this. Can you find any other empty filler clauses in the Bill of Rights that have no purpose?
I didn't quote the opinion.
