Sandy Hook- It's the guns fault, it's always the guns fault.

"Well regulated" means properly equipped and functioning as expected. A rifle that hits to point of aim at 100 yards is said to have sights that are "well regulated." During the War of 1812, especially after the Battle of Baltimore where militia units held the line against the British to prevent them from reaching the city, dispatches praised the "fine regulation" of the militia.... which was about praising its esprit d'corps, skill at arms, and courage under fire.

The Second Amendment is a right of the people, not a power of the government.

 

It does not, as it is a prefatory clause it does not modify the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" which indicates that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. If you look at other uses of the same term in the constitution, they are instances of an individual right. Hence it is an individual right.
Dont fight it.

 

No, it doesn't. Well regulated, must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States. Our Second Amendment was never about individual rights.

 

The "prefatory" clause fixes the Context for the rest of the sentence. That express context is the security of a free State not the whole and entire concept of implied individual rights.

 

Of course. The shooter is the culprit. The rest share part of the responsibility for facilitating the act. Particularly the guns, ammunition and related paraphernalia which were the main tools used to commit the crime.

 

The prefatory clause does not modify the operative though. Grammar is a thing the founders were well aware of

 

still special pleading to the point of ignorance? there are no individual terms in our Second Amendment.

All terms are plural and collective, to reinforce the specific point of the collective need to enable the security of our free States.

 

The comma has nothing to do with grammar. Even though there were punctuation rules at the time, authors were also instructed to use commas wherever they believed somebody who would be reading the text out loud should pause for breath. The first comma is simply a pause for breath. The inclusion or omission does not modify the meaning. There are examples of such "weird" commas all over the writings of the era. And of the Constitution itself. For example, Article III, Section 1 "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme court.” Clearly the comma has no effect. It's just a pause for breath. As is the third comma on the Second Amendment itself. It also has no effect whatsoever.

"A well regulated militia" is integral part of the prefatory clause. And it modifies the Main Clause. In grammar this is called an "Absolute Clause". And therefore, it cannot be omitted, as Scalia pretended.

Heller is now the Law of the Land. But Scalia had to come up with some very inventive "Linguistics" of his own to justify it. Which shows that Attorneys should do laws, and Linguists should do linguistics.

 

The Second Amendment confirms that right.

 

You would think it would confirm the right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.

 

And "the people" are the state(s).

 

The amendment process is what I'm referring to....

You're saying it does not change and grow...and then you say it can change and grow....??

 

The part where the Founders' themselves owned private firearms, without regulation. Assuming of course you aren't implying you know more about the 2nd than they did...

 

What does that have to do with what the 2nd amendment says....

obviously people owned guns.

But there have always been laws and restrictions and rules.

 

Gun grabbing monsters imply that private ownership was tied to the 'well regulated militia', which is clearly false if the Founders' themselves owned private firearms regardless of the militia. Shall not be infringed means exactly what they wrote...

 

And for self defense. Especially against the ultimate threat to human life and liberty - the state.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_paine_100996

 

Ugh...

the state's rights for a militia shall not be infringed.

Nothing about individual rights.

There have ALWAYS been laws, rules, and regulations. That is a FACT.

 

No, "the people" are not the state in a constitutional republic the state is defined by its constitution - by law.

'A government of law and not of men.'

 

So you are saying the Founders' didn't understand the 2nd as well as you do. Got it. Good bye...

 

"The people" are a group that forms a state or a nation.

 

I'm not saying that at all.

Goodbye.

 

They are not the state. The FF were not the USA.

 

Huh?

"The people" is a legal term, like "the people vs. whoever". It is a collection of the people, not any particular individual.

 

Yes, the COTUS can be changed by the amendment process.

"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 LIPTAKMAY 6, 2007.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

For instance: "The right to keep and bear arms may be infringed" could be incorporated to the COTUS.

 

And if they had used a gallon jug of gasoline with a burning rag in it?
Then, we would be demanding to ban gasoline.
Why don't we ban spoons to combat obesity?
Ban cars to end drunk driving?

Or- Why don't we do something about the mentally deranged, unstable people, such as the Parkland school shooter- where the police and FBI were warned at least twice that Cruz planned to shoot up a school, and nobody did anything?

Why don't we blame you and the people who can't understand the fact that people kill people, and the weapon has no malice whatsoever- and ban that kind of thinking?

The argument that the guns are to blame is exactly the argument that is keeping the deranged people who actually kill people out of the spotlight and their problems from being addressed.