What the hell does that have to do with any of this? I SAID that this "weak" or "strong clause" BS is nonsense. The 2nd A MEANS the same as any other sentence in the English language that is structured this way And if you are going to make an argument that you can't defend, I suggest you don't make it in the first place. Nothing personal, but it's a waste of time if you think that throwing in an unrelated link is going to get you out when you dig yourself into an argumentative hole. So WHAT? They are two clauses in one sentence. And the whole sentence describes the law of the land. The absolute clause gives a reason for the main clause. It does this in every single example in which the structure is that describe on the OP. If that reason disappears (as it has), then we can discuss if the main clause remains relevant. This thread is intended to demonstrate that THIS is what the discussion should be about. And I don't see anything in your post rebutting this. What I "wanted"? What I want is irrelevant. The sentence means what it means. And I am demonstrating what that is. Look. If you are trying to argue that the Absolute Clause (prefatory clause) doesn't or shouldn't exist, say so. But, since it exists, we can easily understand why by comparing it to every single sentence in the English language that has the same structure. As written, the absolute clause explains very clearly what the intention of the main clause was. It was! Read all the examples on the OP. And you can spend all night trying to come up with a sentence in English (one that makes sense, not an absurd one) that means something else, and you won't be able to. Still doesn't make logical sense. What is "medical freedom"? And why would it be logically necessary to the equality of women? You are still just throwing in random words and forming meaningless phrases. However, if this sentence made any sense, it would mean that if medical freedom were not necessary to the equality of women, then seeking medical care would not be guaranteed by a law like this. Again, the fact that this doesn't make any LOGICAL (not legal, but logical) sense is that the sentence it derives from doesn't make sense either. Abortion? That phrase was supposed to be about abortion???? Whatever that is, it doesn't mean that abortion can or can't be regulated. In fact, abortion has nothing to do with "equality". It's a right that women have and men don't. So in every aspect your sentence is meaningless. But you do make one point (maybe accidentally). Which is that the 2nd Amendment also doesn't refer to owning weapons. It doesn't allow it, it doesn't restrict it, it doesn't grant it, it doesn't limit it... it just doesn't address it. Just like your phrase doesn't address abortion in any way shape or form. You're completely going off the rails... Can you stay on topic? You didn't bring up grammar. You made up some nonsense about "weak clauses" and "strong clauses" about which you have yet to explain the relevance.
your entire tenure on this board is all about trying to justify eliminating the lawful use and ownership of firearms
He knows that and spends hours and hours trying to convince others that the second amendment doesn't prevent what he wants to impose
Not on this thread. If you can't rebut my point in this thread, that means my point prevails! So if I were actually trying to "justify eliminating the lawful use and ownership of firearms", you're the low hanging fruit.
there is nothing to rebut- you just make stuff up that has no connection with reality to the second amendment or what the founders intended. I taught constitutional law-it is obvious you have no training in this area whatsoever
I know! Isn't it great! It goes to show what my sig says: with proper research, nothing that can be rebutted.
there is nothing to rebut-you offer an opinion that has no basis in fact. BS is what permeates the nonsense you post
he also ignores a fact that is not present in his other examples the government must has the power to infringe --it does not.
Example one-people cannot embark when there is no ship present. Example two-the height of the ceiling combined with John's height prevent him from reaching it-a fact of nature Example three-a completely different scenario than the one above but this is perhaps true Example four-This ASSUMES that the government has the power to infringe unless a militia is necessary. That is a complete fail on your part. The government was never given any such power and thus your argument is specious.
Because you say so? That's not an argument. You mean, like the assertions that you make? Pot, meet kettle. The preamble to the BOR makes it clear that all of the 10 amendments are "declaratory" and "restrictive." The first clause is declaratory. The second clause is declaratory and restrictive. It does not need the first clause in order to be relevant. Clearly, many would like it to be out of the Constitution, so it's entirely relevant.
Correct! Wrong! It assumes NOTHING. It simply doesn't address the matter anymore. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that "bear arms" were equivalent to "own weapons" (a topic that is addressed in the thread that starts with "English 102...", the right to own weapons still exists. It would be just like the right to own ANY type of private property. The 2nd A would simply not address it. So whether the government has the power to infringe on the right to own private property is a whole different issue that is not solved in this thread one way or the other.
No! Everything I say is on the OP. All my arguments are there. YOU said some nonsense about "weak" or "strong" clause. And it looks like you're now running away from it. What does that have to do with anything I have written here? So your argument is that the framers were idiots for including it. Absolute nonsense! And you would like the prefatory clause to be out of the Constitution, so it is most DEFINITELY entirely relevant. This "relevant" and "irrelevant" narrative is nonsense. It's ALL relevant. It's ONE sentence. There was ample debate in Congress before it was sent to the states for ratification. And it was analyzed word for word until they agreed on a final draft. Which is what was approved by the Senate and ratified by the states. Of course it's relevant! All of it! The main clause explain WHAT "shall not be infringed" and the absolute clause explains WHY it shall not be infringed. You are going around in circles to avoid the one and only relevant fact: Which is that you can't find ONE example in the English language that follows this structure (I gave four) where the absolute clause is irrelevant, and that the sentence would mean the same if eliminated. And allow me to save you some time: you won't find one! Over 31 pages in this thread, and nobody has. All your posts, and YOU have been unable to. And don't tell me you haven't tried. I KNOW you have tried... unsuccessfully.
this argument of yours started off as silly contrarian nonsense and has devolved into mental masturbation. I have always noted that the second amendment doesn't even come into play until a corrupt court or congress ignores the tenth amendment. And your interpretation of the second is not one that anyone who matters has adopted
actually there is no doubt whatsoever that the founders completely rejected the concept of the new federal government having any power to restrict private citizens owning whatever arms they wanted. That's a no brainer.
Bro WTF are you talking about? My friends? Why would I phone a friend? I already showed you were off base.
Again: You can go refute the sources I linked you to already: A prefatory clause does not alter, add to, take away from, or otherwise act to change an operative clause. An operative clause may be read alone. Your interpretation is not supported by the text, nor by fact, nor by law. Let it go already.
It doesn't make sense because you've created a strawman no one is arguing so you can violate it in public. No, they inserted a prefatory clause with the regular meaning and effect of a prefatory clause. And the 2a doesn't give you the "right" to serve in the militia. It meant to bear LIKE a soldier or in the same way as a soldier would. It does not per se mean you have the right to be in the militia that gets federalized on call up. Not being qualified for the militia however, will not disqualify you from either keeping or bearing arms as militia service is not a necessary condition for the right to keep and bear arms.
That most definitely is true. So true, that they considered it a joke when somebody proposed including a constitutional Amendment to protect this "right" of private citizens to own guns or....to own ANYTHING, for that matter. What you say is precisely the reason why they didn't include it. This is explained in the "History 101..." link I mentioned above. Including the "joke" I mention here.
No you didn't. What you showed was that you didn't understand what you quoted. You said... Which is EXACTLY the point I make on the OP. To the letter. So, again, if YOU can provide arguments, go for it. If you are going to throw in quotes from others, which you don't understand anyway, then invite THE AUTHOR of your quotes to join the conversation. Because you are not contributing anything whatsoever to this debate.
I know what a "weak clause" is in grammar. But it's irrelevant. Your argument is that because some call the Absolute Clause "weak clause", you can just assume it doesn't exist. Or that it's irrelevant. Wrong! A weak clause is simply one that is not complete. It doesn't mean "we say this, but we don't really mean it". It exists! And it has a very important purpose. Your pro-guns colleague helps me make my point for me. This is EXACTLY the point of this thread. The prefatory clause (linguists call it "absolute clause") explains WHY. It tells us why the "right to bear arms" exists. It exists BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. So the ONLY purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that the discussion should be focused on one thing, and one thing only: Is a well-regulate militia STILL necessary to the security of a free State? If it's not, then the 2nd A, law of the land or not, is useless. As useless as the 3rd A. That's all! And this poster helps me make that point, though I'm not sure he realizes it. Anything else, should be discussed in the corresponding thread. That "bear arms" refers to a military scenario ONLY is discussed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ What the INTENTION of the 2nd A is discussed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ And WHO "a well regulated milita" refers to here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/
you still demonstrate your lack of understanding of the tenth amendment and why half the founders never thought a bill of rights was even needed
I guess you trying desperately to change the subject means you can't rebut my arguments about the 2nd Amendment. Great! My job is done, then. Oh... and if you ever want to discuss the 10th A, or any other aspect of the Bill of Rights, by all means don't hesitate to open a thread. No need to be shy about it.
What I quoted is directly from the Linguists brief in Heller. Indeed: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; is the operative clause. You make the opposite point: Trying to use the prefatory clause to change the plain meaning of the operative clause. I have provided arguments from experts in the field quoted in a current holding. The authors wrote it in the 1800s ffs.
And yet the prefatory clause cannot alter the terms, nor does well regulated mean anything but in working order. We've been over and over this. It doesn't matter if its STILL necessary or not (it is but that's not the point): IF you want to change the Constitution do so by Article V. The 3rd is only useless because no american military would be foolish enough to attempt to quarter troops in someones home. It doesn't mean they could just say "its obsolete so your home is now a barracks".
