That too, they were worried that a standing army would prevent democracy. But the reason why they passed the second amendment was to provide regulations to state militias who solely protected the federal gov't.
The first twelve words give the actual intent of the passers of the second amendment. The last 13 words are to placate anti-federalists who were greatly concerned about any increase of federal power...Paraphrasing the last 13 words, if any state constitution arms mandate is violated with this amendment, that arms right established by that state constitution will not be infringed.
So you believe the 2nd A is written in some language other than English? Sorry but you're just making your absurd statement worse. If that were even possible....
I won't be bothering any more with this fruitless discussion but that claim of yours has no support from ANYONE who even has a month of law school education or more.
What part of that is not true? It's supported by anybody who had even a week of history school education or more. The MAIN reasons why the 2nd A was even passed was because the Federal Government feared states might be neglecting the militias, which were needed to protect the Federal Government. Are law schools THAT bad in this country, that they don't teach history?
Legal precedents can sometimes be wrong. Like the Roe V. Wade legal precedent, for example. Like the Dred Scott decision in 1857, for example.
What a neocon would say. I have a counterargument which is plausible except it goes against your ideology so you shut it down. So, you shut down.
you are confused about what he said-he says the language of the second gives the federal government powers to regulate militias. I say the second amendment is completely a negative restriction on the federal government-it has no power over individuals keeping and bearing arms
the lengths gun banners go to pretend that the second isn't about individual rights and the prevention of the government from screwing with them shows -better than almost anything else-that these gun restrictionists know exactly what the founders intended and these restrictionists HATE IT
That's not history you don't even know the history of the US. At the time the second amendment is written we weren't a federalist country. Even more of a confederation of colonies or States within a nation the states tended to govern themselves. It wasn't until after the civil war that all changed.
That's what an antifederalist would say to a federalist document, er, The Constitution. If you're an antifederalist, are you against The Constitution? But you aren't an antifederalist are you since you're against free speech and against democracy.
George Washington and Alex Hamilton, for examples, were just about as federalist as they come. For example, James Madison was federalist until he realized the movement among American politicians to ban slavery, for example, which would've been to the detriment of his Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was just about as antifederalist as they come. Heck, Jefferson tried to launch a major blow to federalism by impeaching the head of the Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase. Jefferson also hated the decision of SCOTUS concerning judicial review, er, Madison V. Marbury.
Yet another strawman fallacy Here is an idea - how about putting forward an argument that has actual substance?
Samuel Chase was a SCOTUS member and Marshall was the head of SCOTUS at the time of Jefferson's impeachment of Chase which failed in the Senate. Heck, Jefferson was just as a mad at Marshall because of the decision of Madison V. Marbury as Chase.
Yes. Let's misinterpret the last 13 words of the second amendment and vilify anyone who dares to disagree. That misinterpretation and vilification sounds a whole lot like a dislike of freedom of speech, for example, if you ask me.
have you ever addressed this point from one of the most influential law review articles ever on the subject
During the time of the passing of the second amendment in 1791, to bear arms meant to use arms in war and to keep arms meant to use arms in other than war situations. When the second amendment used the phrase keep and bear arms (which meant two separate things in 1791), the second amendment was referring to all aspects of arms usage. Don't know why more SCOTUS judges like Scalia didn't use the writings and speech of the passers of the second to determine the motive of the second. BTW, I don't know how the argument that to bear and keep arms meant the same thing. I mean, do people think the founders weren't eloquent but rather redundant? Second BTW, do posters actually think that allowing the federal gov't to determine arms usage in America with the misinterpretation of the last 13 words in the second amendment isn't a huge increase in federal power?
You actually didn't grasp the fact that the mention of spurs and helmets is meant to evoke a military scenario in the mind of the reader? Your post is a pathetic display of inability to perceive what a simile is. The quote most DEFINITELY refers to a military scenario. And the quote PROVES what the OP says. BTW, if you are going to debate Corpus, this is where the topic was raised.
His claim: The lengths gun banners go to... 1: pretend that the second isn't about individual rights... 2: pretend the 2nd isn't about prevention of the government from screwing with the righ to keep and bear arms How is this a strawman? How many examples of each do you think I can provide?
