1) You seem to have missed this part: Because you want to institute gun control which is unconstitutional. See 2a. You do want gun control. This is a fact. Pretending otherwise wastes all of our time. 2) You seem to have missed this part as well: Yeah, you can use the same source quoted by scalia in heller. If you were as familiar with heller as you like to let on you'd know just where that is and what I'm talking about.
Gun control is not the topic of this thread. This is about the linguistic structure of the 2nd A And since you fail to support the one claim you made that IS relevant to the thread (YOU: "A prefatory clause by definition has no effect on the operative clause"), the only possible conclusion is that you just make up claims. Which makes debating with you useless. Thanks for playing....
Sure. Even though they didn't want every individual citizen to be part of a well-regulated militia, though. But that's a different topic http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/
that's not an answer directly but it does answer the question. YOU KNOW that the founders never intended for their new federal government to have any powers in this area and saw gun control as purely a state issue. And now that the second has been incorporated through the 14th and McDonald, gun banners are trying to pretend that the second doesn't recognize an individual right
Gun control has nothing to do with "... to keep and bear arms". Different topic that you can discuss here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ I think you already posted there. Not sure why you choose the wrong thread to post your topics. Is it so you don't have to address the point being made by the OP of each one?
Don't cut the quotes. As already discussed, some perceive that to be intellectual dishonesty, a form of trolling, and we want to keep things perfectly civil. You certainly want gun control, you've called for it often enough. Why do you lack the courage of your convictions? I supported it, its sitting right there in Heller for the whole world to see and be bound by. The fact you ignore it like you do anything inconvenient for you is part for the course.
that's bald faced fib. gun control is all about preventing otherwise legal owners from KEEPING, BEARING, acquiring, using, possessing, or acquiring firearms
His objective here is to get you to call him a liar and then report you for violating the rules. The fact you are correct means nothing.
As I am sure you know the gun control movement is always about empowering every kind of violent criminals by disarming the public, and gun control laws are very effective at encouraging violent crime. Why would anyone expect any other result? “The crime rate in England and Wales is the highest in the industrialised world, an international study has found.” THE INDEPENDENT (UK), England has worst crime rate in the West, By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent, 2/23/2001. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...has-worst-crime-rate-in-the-west-5365902.html
I have said it a hundred times: I only quote the parts I'm responding to. I don't even know why you anybody would need to read what they themselves wrote. And I will certainly not respond to attempts to derail the thread by going off-topic. I do. But that's not the topic of this thread.
the topic of this thread is how anti gun activists dishonestly try to pretend that the second amendment does not stand in the way of their schemes to help violent criminals and disarm honest Americans
This thread is about a SERIOUS topic. If you want to open a thread to promote conspiracy theories, you can open your own. But leave this one for serious posters. Do not derail this one.
"The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.' A deer hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained additional language that 'no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.' Even in the final version, note how the military phrase 'bear arms' is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the 'militia' and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the quartering of 'soldiers' in times of 'war' and 'peace.'.... "Equally anachronistically, libertarians read 'the people' to mean atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho, rather than the citizenry acting collectively. But, when the Constitution speaks of 'the people' rather than 'persons,' the collective connotation is primary." https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts Even without the preamble about a well-regulated militia, it doesn't appear that the language of the Second Amendment says anything at all about a right to use guns for private purposes.
Even Left Wing Constitutional lawyers have finally admitted the obvious if inconvenient truth: The 2nd amendment protects an important individual right. "Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”" THE NEW YORK TIMES, A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary, By Adam Lipton, 5/6/2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/u...hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&
Fail. If you can't explain how this is relevant to analysis of the language of the Second Amendment then don't bring it up.
I don't recall seeing that you are a moderator. Serious posters don't continually distort the truth, and pretend their unsupported opinions are facts. Or that a pseudo science is actually relevant in a legal discussion
it's akin to woke medical doctors telling us that they know best how to stop gun crime without having any understanding of constitutional rights, criminology or the use of firearms
given that there is not single contemporaneous document that suggests any founders saw it otherwise, all I can say is DUH!
