NOPE, the second amendment limits what the federal government can do. and now it limits what the state governments can do through incorporation by the 14th amendment and McDonald v Chicao
Nope, close but not completely right. The people always had-at a federal level, that right and the second and tenth amendments tell the federal government that it has no power to interfere with that right
The Second Amendment didn’t need “morphing”, it has always reserved the right to own firearms to each and every American. “Heller” makes the somewhat confusing wording of the Second Amendment completely unambiguous an makes plane that firearms in common usage are included in that RIGHT.
I believe HE decided it. And the other activist justices just went along. It wouldn't surprise me if we knew one day they hadn't even read it. But it makes NO difference to my point. This thread is about the 2nd A as written and approved by the states. Scalia is irrelevant to this thread.
The study mentioned in the OP, linguistic analysis, the database of all documents written at the time and the HISTORY behind the discussion leading to the 2nd A... ALL prove you wrong. I can't top that. So it's up to you if you want to go by facts, or just stick to a quasi-religious dogma.
Ah! So having failed to "rip" my arguments in linguistics, you think you'll have better luck with my Historical arguments? Hate to break it to you (not really), but I doubt you'll have better luck. Here are the threads you'll have to "rip" http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ell-regulated-militia.589757/#post-1072757880 I suggest you read the OP in each before taking a shot at it. But, to be honest, I don't see you as the one who would shed much light on those topics.
Your saying SCOTUS in its overreach decreed the 2ND a universal arms rights amendment for all Americans?
Dude, the last 13 words of the 2ND was the limitation of federal power...In the first 12 words, the second gave all kinds of power to the federal to regulate state militias and then in the last 13 words scaled back the power of the federal...The last 13 were never meant to grant universal arms rights to all Americans. The last 13 reassured people that the power of the 2ND didn't overstep the power of state constitutions. I think, with your and SCOTUS' bogus interpretation of the 2nd, much power has been granted to the federal when it comes to arms rights...The opposite of what the original passers of the 2ND wanted.
Really, what limitation is on the federal when the federal with the aid of the 2ND gets to decide arms ownership for Americans?
The last 13 words of the second (which are constantly being misinterpreted) was the limitation on the federal. I posted this to you in a previous post in this thread.
I've researched the passers and what they were trying to accomplish when they passed the 2ND and I don't rely on some normal linguistic patterns of Americans in 1791. Read the intent of the passers. Figure it out, just once.
You cannot demonstrate this to be true. Congress was given all the power it needed to regulate the state militias in Article I sec 8; the 2nd gives no power to Congress or anyone else - indeed, the 2nd LIMITS the power of the federal government to regulate state militias
This statement is false. The 2nd does not, in any way, give power to anyone or anything. You cannot demonstrate otherwise.
That's not how it works. I'm sure it wouldn't, or that's what fits your paradigm. That's not how it works. True. No it's a thread about what you wish was "about the 2nd A as written and approved by the states." Which you done enough research to massage the fact to fit that wish. But, 1296 posts later you've been proven wrong at least in 2/3rds of those posts. about the 2nd A as written and approved by the states.Scalia is irrelevant to this thread.[/QUOTE] Then why do you keep slandering him?
Heller v US specifically holds that the "militia" wording in the 2d amendment in no way limits a citizen's right to own firearms. The Supreme Court has the power of LAW... disagreeing posters DO NOT.
laughable-the words of the founders are what count. they don't agree with your cherry picked "linguists"
no, I will try again 1) The second amendment is purely a negative restriction on the federal government 2) the second was not written to restrict state actions 3) the 14th was combine the 14th with the second and states are restricted in interfering with gun rights
