I disagree-if the tenth was properly interpreted the second would have no additional safeguards until we get to the state level.
You're outta luck, fella. I will ALWAYS cut the quotes as soon as I see posters go off-topic. If you're this desperate about me commenting about your entire post, the solution is simple: stay on topic. The powers of the federal government are NOT the topic here. Grammar is the topic. I gave you multiple links where you can discuss other matters.
we should take a poll who is better educated on constitutional law and history. You have continually demonstrated you are not and your arguments are not merely ignorant-but patently dishonest
You haven't even figured out that this thread is not about EITHER of those . It's about GRAMMAR! And even though figuring that out requires a little education... it's not really that much. Having said that, there ARE two threads I opened about the History behind the drafting of the 2nd A, and you didn't do much better in those either. So.... Anyway... enough of your attempts to derail the thread.
No. It means and says "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." Two interdependent and inseparable clauses that can only mean anything different than what is explained in the OP if you cherry-pick words or groups of words as if they were independent.
well those of us who understand the intent of the founders-easily understand what the intent of the second was. those who are upset with what the founders intended, try to reinterpret what the second amendment says in order to allow your nefarious desires to disarm American citizens
I’m not cherry picking words. I understand that it is a complete sentence. And part of what it is saying is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. And please note that I said “part of what” not “all that”
Great! So we're on the same page. Did you have a point? It was necessary when the Amendment passed. Youi see... when interpreting texts, the FIRST thing to understand is that whoever writes them expects a minimum intelligence on the reader. Otherwise the Constitution would be much much longer attempting to explain the most obvious details. So unless your argument is that the framers were total morons who believed it would ALWAYS be necessary, for which you would need much more evidence to prove... (hopefully including certificates of mental instability ), clearly they mean at the time. And it would apply to any time when it's necessary. Just like NOBODY would interpret that any of the examples used by the OP to mean that the ship would ALWAYS be docked, or that John would ALWAYS be standing on a chair. As in any debate about a text (the 2nd A, in this case) that requires the assumption that the person who writes it is a moron, this one, I believe, has a tendency to diminish the image of your... and my (just for taking it seriously) intellectual capacities. So now that it's clear that it's a complete and inalterable sentence, I don't think it's worth it to waste much more time on it.
They knew that a well regulated militia would alway be necessary, yes. And they wrote it that way: being necessary. Of course, if we no longer deem a well regulated militia necessary, we can always amend the language.
Ok. So your argument IS that they were complete morons. It would be dumb to try to argue against that using logic and rational thought. On the other hand, of course, the GRAMMATICAL structure of the phrase proves you wrong. As I said, UNLESS you believe that, to use any example on the OP, the sentence as quoted means the ship would ALWAYS be docked. In any case, you just made clear what your argument is, and I find it too ridiculous to waste any more time with it. Thanks anyway.
Nope. My argument is that they thought that a militia is necessary, and that’s what they wrote. Nope. It doesn’t say “will always be docked”. It says it IS docked. Just as the language doesn’t that a militia will always be necessary. It say it IS necessary. We can always remove that language to indicate that it is no longer necessary. I accept your surrender.
You need to pay better attention. What I have told you more times than I care to remember, along with many others here, and likely wherever else you like to go and advocate stripping people of their birthrights, and most importantly, the USSC has stated on, oh... At least half a dozen times over the course of decades is that the RKBA exists for individual persons irrespective of whether or not they are in a militia, or one even exists at all. Even if world peace made them obsolete for anything except recreational use (shooting is a fun activity for many people), it would still be an individual right every American (and I'd argue every other human as well, despite the sad fact that many governments violate it on the regular) holds unless and until they disqualify themselves based on their actions. And I promise you, whatever the next big gun rights case the USSC decides to take up, when their ruling comes down and they absolutely drop the hammer on the inferior Courts for ignoring their prior rulings on the subject, you are not going to like the results, because it may very well invalidate virtually all gun control measures in existence today, including any form of registration, requiring a permit or "card" to buy one in the first place, requiring licenses to open or concealed carry in virtually all public spaces, and so forth. Bottom line is that you are not going to like what is coming, and I expect if it's not in their next term, it will be the one after that. His regs on handgun braces and 40% lowers have already been tossed out by lower Courts, and I expect most existing gun control laws will meet the same fate in the not very distant future, and I cannot wait to see you guys freak the f out about the whole thing. It will truly make my day! Oh, one other thing... You may want to get your money back from whomever taught you about the way the branches of the US Federal Government works, because Courts do not create legislation, that would be Congress' job.
Except taxation and regulation of interstate commerce are specific grants of power ie they are delegated by the constitution. Those powers would touch gun rights if not for the 2nd amendment. It stands as a barrier between those essentially plenary power grants and our rights.
We don't need to remove anything. Obsolescence was already built into the Amendment. Looks like the framers were smarter than you appear to think. Certainly smarter than some of our current (and one recently current, to include Scalia) Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, you are making an argument that not even THEY made. So... not sure where that leaves you.
It doesn't say "unitl" dude. You'll need an amendment to get what you're asking for. You're mathematically unable to achieve same. Perish mad about it.
No idea what you're babbling about. This thread has NOTHING to do with stripping anybody of ANY right. Birth or otherwise.... NONE of the threads I have opened in the "Guns" forum have anything to do with that. So I can't even refer you to another one. If you have something to contribute to what this thread IS about... go for it. The tactic of changing the subject to one you are more comfortable with when you have no arguments to counter a point, is a known tactic that the right uses, but it doesn't work with me.
What are you talking about? What am I "asking for"? And what does "unitl" mean? Are you sure you're feeling ok? I can't understand a word you're saying. You know that talking incoherently can be sign of several conditions, right? You might want to get checked.
My bad, I drove by and didn't proof my post since you merit so little of my time. UNTIL. It doesn't say UNTIL dude. It doesn't say SO LONG AS. What you want is to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Your claim is that 1) the 2a somehow means until a militia is unnecessary or so long as a militia is necessary and 2) that a militia is no longer necessary. Both of those claims are blatantly false.
Doesn't look like you're proofing your posts yet. When have I said I want to infringe the right to keep and bear arms?
There is no obsolescence. Laws don’t have a “best used by date”. Yep, that’s what the constitution still says today.
I do not know what you have been smoking, but party foul for not sharing! You're off your rocker, there is no such thing as 'planned obsolescence' in the Constitution, except perhaps the clauses that allowed people alive during the time of ratification who were not born US Citizens (because there was no US) to become President and other offices that require one to be a born citizen, and they made that clear, it wasn't in some code that only you noticed after 2 1/2 centuries! You keep doing your semantic games, about every other week or so you come up with some new, crazy bullshit and think you've nailed it, but you never have, and you never will... The language is clear, it has been ruled on by the USSC on a half dozen or dozen cases, and they all support the INDIVIDUALS right to keep and bear arms, with Heller and Bruen hopefully making that so crystal clear that even some mud dwelling water creature can see it. Hmm. You are from Florida...
On virtually every thread you've ever participated in on the topic, in fact, you've out and out said so on several occasions! We are not stupid bro!
In Heller v US the Supreme Court held that the "militia" wording in the 2d Amendment in no way limited the right of citizens to own and bear arms. The Supreme Court's decision has the power and authority of law. YOUR OPINION DOES NOT. Period.
