Who said anything about limiting principles? John could reach the ceiling if he stood on a ladder, or a scaffold, or a box, or ....many things. But it just so happens that a chair is the only one referred to in the sentence. Just like "a well regulated militia" is the only one mentioned. Assuming that the 2nd A refers to an individual right to own weapons for personal use is like assuming that John can reach the ceiling standing on a box. Maybe he can, maybe he can't.... It's simply not addressed. The absolute clause is the cause of the main clause. But that doesn't mean it's the only cause that exists. It simply doesn't refer to others. It neither includes nor excludes them.
the most important argument that the anti gun advocates miss is that if they want to pretend that the second amendment does not protect individual rights, even though "the right of the people" is pretty clearly about individuals, is the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING in Article One, Section 8 that even hints at a gun control power for the federal government. Using the commerce clause is so dishonest that even those who pretend that there should be a federal gun control power, cannot bring themselves to defend that nonsense in academic journals
You are saying that the second amendment is about the right of militias to bare arms. That is your main argument. Your simply Ignoring that the “militia” in this context is the “people” meaning all people. Which makes it an individual right not a collective right. Beyond the grammar does it make in anyway sense to you that the authors of the bill of rights would draft up a Bill of rights and 9/10 are centered around individual liberties and 1/10 are a collective right? I don’t think so. The collective right nonsense is just the lefts way to argue against gun ownership and it’s not founded in any sort of real grammar, historical, or even legal context.
Your statement, above, is false. If you researched your argument at all, you'd know this. Why do you claim "It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments" when you do not research your arguments?
All of this addressed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-2nd-amendment.586263/page-6#post-1072542992 I ignore nothing. I just keep topics separated to avoid others from trying to dodge my arguments with strawman arguments. If you have something relevant to my point that I haven't addressed, open a thread and point me to it. I will contribute if I have anything relevant to say. Right now I have shown you the three threads I opened about the topic of the 2nd A
"Technically speaking", the correct term for the 2nd Amendment's declarative, dependent clause is ablative absolute, which partially explains why you are so discombobulated.
Do you have any real arguments? Or did you just want to discuss meta-languages? The terminology I used is Scalia's. You have any problem with that, blame him. I used his terminology precisely because I had no interest in wasting my time discussing semantics with those who would use Scalia's arguments to counter mine. Now... did you have anything to comment about my point? Or was that it?
Meta-languages? You're the one arguing a grammar based position analyzing an absolute clause and an ablative absolute clause at that, an archaic Latin construction that has no real parallel in contemporary English. You are representing an ablative absolute as controlling and modifying the restrictive clause when in actual practice it has no explicit grammatical or syntactic link to the rest of the sentence. For someone so fixated on the precision of language you sure do misconstruct and misconstrue and use misdirection in your written expression. I asked why you did not use the framer's description of "declarative" for the first clause of the 2ndA. Why run to the misdirection into Scalia's use, why defend yourself citing Scalia's use of prefatory, doing so defeats a leg supporting your argument, that you only use the words of the 2nd to construct your conclusion. Besides, citing Scalia as the source of "prefatory", strikes me as you allowing your opponent to define the terms of the debate. So I'll ask again, since your research is so vast and complete, why not use "declarative" as the descriptor? Your entire argument is one of semantics, are you really saying your argument is a waste of time? Are you really saying I brought Scalia's words into this discussion, that I'm using Scalia's arguments to counter yours? I was using the words of the framers of the 2nd Amendment, YOU are the one admitting to using a polluted term introduced into the 2ndA discussion by Scalia . . . You have used that word repeatedly, (without any reference to Scalia) as if you believe that "prefatory" is he proper assignment for the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. You are one mixed up cowboy. I'll post up something in a few minutes, I need to go into an old external drive. .
I wrote about absolute clauses 30 years ago when I began debating gun rights. I, like you, gave some examples, absolute clause in italic and bold, independent clause in just bold, starting with the simplest constructions I could think of, challenging the common practice then (and remaining undead it seems) of inventing conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the independent clause from the absolute, dependent clause: All things considered, it’s not a bad idea. Whether or not the idea is bad or not, does not depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered or if that anything at all must be considered to in fact decide if the idea is bad or not. Let's try another simple one to make sure the principle is understood: The teacher being ill, class is canceled. Can the class only be canceled if the teacher is sick? What if he is lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; is class still canceled? Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill; is a substitute allowed? What if the teacher is ill but toughs it out and comes in, can the class be held? Now we move on . . . Let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the independent (restrictive) clause in sentences grammatically constructed like the 2nd Amendment with an declaratory absolute clause preceding the independent, actionable, restrictive clause . . . A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed. Can the people only use automobiles to commute to and from work? Are retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy to be "de-autoed" because they do not work? Can the people only drive on a governmentally maintained road system? Can they only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting? Are the people barred from taking a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?" Let's try one more: A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Can only registered voters keep and read books? Can only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read? Can books deemed NOT "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be banned? Can books that openly threaten the "perpetuation of a free state" be banned? Can only those with a government certified IQ above 120 and deemed "well educated" by the government, keep and read books? Expecting to fully understand the 2nd when one is completely ignorant of the principles behind it, is folly and leads to exactly the positions you have stated. You are giving the 2ndA a cursory reading applying modern inferences to the lexicon and grammar of the founders and that leads you to incorrect opinions on the meaning and the interpretation of the 2nd. The second point upon which your position fails is that in order to argue that certain words, the lexicon and linguistics, the punctuation and general construction of the 2nd Amendment imparts conditions, qualifications and exceptions on the right, requires one to hold that the right emanates from those words and that construction. In arguing that, one is arguing against the fundamental constitutional principle that the right to arms is not granted, conferred or established by the Bill of Rights and ignoring direct Supreme Court precedent reaffirming that principle multiple times. .
I would suggest that your whole argument can’t be driven into wedge pieces and discussed intelligently. For a simple grammar aspect you fail to persuade that the usage of a present participle somehow modifies the noun or the verb present in the second amendment to such a degree that would change the individual liberty to own a firearm into some sort of collective bargaining ownership based on service in a militia. Which makes no sense historically as the framers were flat against the use of a standing military force which you seem to believe is not important to said discussion, or at least want to Partition off into another thread. Your argument sir falls completely flat once you combine both grammar, historical, and contextual points together. You seem to want to focus on a finite detail as if that proves your arguments when in fact couple with all facts together actually disproves your points. It’s effectively splitting hairs and missing the larger picture.
all of which were refuted on page 1. Your interpretations have no basis in law or by the rules of grammar. It's why your argument has lost every single times it's been tried in court.
when talking about gun advocates, the anti gun control freaks are invariably part of the conservation. America didn't have "gun advocates" until the Democrats tried using gun control as a scheme to pander to the weak minded.
Exactly! Not if I call it absolute clause, or you call it prefatory clause. That is exactly the inane debate that I am not interested in. Do you have any arguments to rebut the point I made on the OP? I'll repeat it for you, in case you missed it. In English, when the verb in a prefatory clause ends in -ing, there is a causal relation between it and the main clause when the verb is stative. In other words, the prefatory clause is a necessary CAUSE of the main clause. Always!!! Yes! The absolute clause modifies the main clause. That's what absolute clauses DO in an absolute construction. The sentence "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to KaBA..." can be written as "Because a milita is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to KaBA..." The meaning has no varied from one to the other. The first was natural in the 18th century, but rarely (if ever) used today. The second is more natural to us, And to any English speaker, it's clear that it's because a militia is necessary, then the right to KaBA is necessary. If the militia is NOT necessary, then neither is the right to KaBA. Simple.... That's right. I don't give a crap about the terms you want to use. Too often people who can't rebut a point wander into semantics. And I must say, I'm afraid, that's this is what you are doing. I just repeated my point. Do you have anything to counter it? Who cares??? They used what they used. And it means what it means! I don't know if my research is vast and complete. But it's vast and complete enough for me to comfortably say that I did my due diligence. Or that I'm doing my research. Because my research always continues. But again you change the subject. This debate is not about me. Constantly changing the subject is an indication that you may not have any counter-arguments to my REAL point. It's semantics about the text in the 2nd A, not semantics about the meta-language used to describe the grammatical structure. Now... do you have anything to counter my argument? Yes or no?
Interesting. Because not a single word I have said is mine. Not one! I took it from Linguists (the linguistic parts) and Historians (the history part). All of which i provided references. The fact that they are experts in their fields doesn't automatically make them right (that would be an "Argument from Authority" fallacy) . But your response clearly indicates that you have no counter arguments. So why continue wasting our time?
That was true 100 years ago. Its relatively easily to manufacture guns at home now. Criminals dont (much) because its still cheaper (faster) to buy them than make them. Restrictions will change that.
Make perhaps using 19 th century techniques ...but mass produce ? I’m in favor of making it more difficult for criminals to get a reliable firearm. I think the component material which is very hard to work with by hand and very difficult to come by. But OK, they’ll weigh three times as much and cost 100 times more in labor alone.
No. Same amount of labor. Lathes, mills and presses arent unobtainium like they used to be. China makes 'mini' versions for DIYers that are quite affordible and precision enough for gun parts. Most guns arent particularly complicated machines. The AK for example was designed specifically to be mass produceable with low quality tools and unskilled workers 70 years ago. The USSR wanted a design they could send to anywhere to be built by general laborers quickly and cheaply with tools already on hand, and they came up with a really good one.
