Except that the passengers can embark from another vessel, or from a helicopter. Flaw - assuming that the prefatory clause is the only prefatory clause. I can touch a standard 8' ceiling from tip-toe. John can use a ladder. He doesn't need to stand on a chair to reach the ceiling. Flaw - assuming that the prefatory clause is the only prefatory clause. Unless another prefatory clause exists - "Because of the need to house homeless after a devastating storm, the library cannot close". Flaw - assuming that the prefatory clause is the only prefatory clause. Flaw - assuming that the prefatory clause is the only prefatory clause. This is absolutely not true, and you know it. Examined, found lacking.
Sure... But it's not in the phrase. Just like the right to keep and bear arms for other purposes than what the main clause states, ... may exist... but it's not in the 2nd A. Which is my point. The prefatory clause in the 2nd A is the ONLY prefatory clause in the 2nd A. Looks like you have proven my point. the ONLY reason given in the 2nd A for bearing arms is being part of a well-regulated militia.
The prefatory clause in your examples were the only examples you wrote down, but in reality other examples do exist, which means that the main clause can exist independently of the prefatory clause. Look, we know you try. The prefatory clause in the 2A is a sufficient but not necessary condition, as noted by my discussion of your very own examples you compared the 2A to. No chair, John can still reach the ceiling. Ship not in port, passengers can still embark. No need for a militia, the right of the People to keep and bear arms still shall not be infringed.
When somebody says "The ship having docked into the port, the passengers can embark" nobody is thinking of helicopters... The phrase in no way evokes any reference whatsoever to helicopters in the mind of typical English speaker. That's a ridiculous argument. It can. But it doesn't. They can, but they are not included in the phrase. Just like any other reason for bearing arms CAN exist but, whatever that is, it's not in the 2nd A. Which is my point.
No, the ridiculous argument is "Which means that the passengers cannot embark (main clause), if the ship hasn't docked into the port (prefatory clause)". Obviously, they can. Another ridiculous argument - "Which means that John cannot reach the ceiling (main clause), if he doesn't stand on a chair (prefatory clause)" Since passengers can embark when a ship is not docked into the port and John can reach the ceiling without standing on a chair, your argument that "In other words, the prefatory clause is a necessary CAUSE of the main clause. Always!!!" doesn't hold. I've explained it to you before. In Logic, the phrase P implies Q means that if P is true, then Q has to be true also. If P is false, nothing regarding the validity of Q can be determined: if P --> Q, ~P doesn't imply ~Q, and that's the basis for your entire argument. In every single one of your examples the main clause existed independently of your prefatory clause. No, your point is that if P (a need for a militia exists) is true, then Q is true (the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) AND that if P (a need for a militia exists) is false then Q (the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) is false. That's a logical fallacy.
Not according to the phrase. They'd likely drown if they tried. So the ship having docked is the only one that requires NO assumptions. You can make whatever assumptions you want. But you CANNOT say that they are in the phrase. The same goes for the 2nd A. The only reason to keep and bear arms that does not require any assumptions is for use as part of a well-regulated militia. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It would be absolutely absurd that educated people like the framers would enact a law expecting people to make assumptions. Wrong! That is NOT my point. My point is that any other value for P that you wish to assume and that would make Q true IS NOT in the 2nd A. Let's put it this way: what other reason would there be to "keep and bear arms"? And keep in mind that, at the time the 2nd A was written, "keep and bear arms" ALWAYS referred to a military scenario. You do not "bear arms" against a rabbit. You bear arms against an army or a foe.... As was shown in the corresponding debate (link below) using Corpus Linguistics, every single instance of "bear arms" and "keep arms" in all literature at the time, including articles, books, signs, letters... those idioms ALWAYS refer to a military scenario. (The one exception proves the rule) http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Why is not knowing linguistics a flaw of character? I don't know crap about car racing. If somebody stated that fact, would it be an attack of character? Scalia is one of the greatest legal minds this country has had in the last decades. But knows nothing about linguistics. He tried to delve into the subject when writing the Heller decision But it was soon obvious to anybody who read it that he was way over his head. It's as if I sat down to try to write a serious piece about Dale Ernhardt's driving style. The weakness of your argument is clear indication that you ran out of steam. Don't sweat it. You're not the first one who finds themselves with no arguments and desperately looking for a way out of the discussion. I've been in that situation too. But I usually just acknowledge I was wrong. Short of that I would say the most befitting manner to do it would be to simply not post anymore, don't you think? Grasping at straws to find these weak arguments just makes it worse.
There you go again assuming that if the ship wasn't in port that the passengers have no other way of embarking. It requires a major assumption that there are no other reasons to keep and bear arms. Occam's Razor does not help your position. The main phrase stands on its own, regardless of the validity of the prefatory clause. If all I have to do is refute your position is show this claim to be wrong, then we're done: Contemporary state constitutions that your historians somehow missed. Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). Your historians missed The Dissent of the Minority of the Convention. The Pennsylvania minority castigated the majority for not allowing the proposal of amendments-in particular a bill of rights, which would have provided in part: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game Neither self defense nor killing game are part of a military scenario. So much for your "every single instance".[/quote][/QUOTE]
I'm not assuming. The phrase SAYS it. Explicitly! I didn't say there isn't. I only say that, whatever that reason is (though I can't think of any)... it's NOT in the 2nd A. Simple as that. Please read my sig. I have missed NOTHING. I know very well what state constitutions say. But I'm not talking about state constitutions. I'm talking about the 2nd A. Are you not reading? I said you do not bear arms against a rabbit. That would make no sense in English. So what other reasons, that would make sense in English, would there be to bear arms? Looks like you can't think of any either. Give me a phrase in English that would make sense and includes the idiom "bear arms" and is not related to a military scenario. And obviously i'm talking about the IDIOM. Not the words. So anything like "His arms were so hairy they looked like bear arms" does not cut it! Exactly. The minority LOST. Noah Webster asked sarcastically why not add: “That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”
The state constitutions refute your historians' claim. Your opinion doesn't count. Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). You can keep ignoring the facts that contemporaries explicitly noted "bearing of arms" for self defense. It totally refutes your claims that "every single instance of "bear arms" and "keep arms" in all literature at the time, including articles, books, signs, letters... those idioms ALWAYS refer to a military scenario." Yet they state, unequivocally, that bearing arms includes self defense and hunting. Tell your historians that.
What historians' claim? And in what way? It would be most useful if you expressed your statements in a more complete form. What opinion? Fair enough. I said in the corresponding thread that it always means military scenario when used without a qualifier. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ My mistake for not clarifying here. Just that it wasn't relevant to THIS thread, because this is about the linguistic structure of the 2nd A as written. But your point is well taken, and you are correct. However, the point in the above link is that a qualifier was necessary when referencing "keep arms" or "bear arms" in any scenario other than a military one. Qualifier that is absent in the 2nd A. Now, can you provide a phrase in English, in which the idiom "bear arms" is used without a qualifier to refer to anything other than a military scenario? Which is the way it's used in the 2nd A (no qualifier).
Contemporary state constitutions recognized the importance of the militia. However, they said little or nothing about the use of guns for private purposes. Georgia Constitution, 1777: "Every county in this State that has, or hereafter may have, two hundred and fifty men, and upwards, liable to bear arms, shall be formed into a battalion; and when they become too numerous for one battalion, they shall be formed into more, by bill of the legislature; and those counties that have a less number than two hundred and fifty shall be formed into independent companies." Virginia Constitution, 1776: “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Delaware Constitution, 1776: “(Sect. 18.) “That a well regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government. … (Sect. 19.) That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the Legislature. … (Sect. 20.) That in all cases and at all times the military ought to be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.” Maryland Constitution, 1776: “That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government. … That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up, without consent of the Legislature. … That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to and control of the civil power.” North Carolina Constitution, 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” New York Constitution, 1777: “And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. … And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.” Massachusetts Constitution, 1780: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.”
You do understand it's up to SCOTUS to interpret what the Second Amendment says, not some tedious semantic gymnastics, right?
Neither did Commie Constitution perverters. "Those who read that as a qualifier believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the state militia, which we now call the National Guard. The only problem with that theory is that if you ask the man who wrote it, you will find it was not his intent at all. In fact James Madison stated quite clearly that the militia is the body of the people, in other words, it is the citizens of this Republic. So based on Mr. Madison’s statement about the amendment he wrote we can rule out the militia as the National Guard argument." https://beingjohnadams.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/the-true-purpose-of-the-2nd-amendment/
Yes. But that's not what this thread is about. This is about the 2nd A as written and approved by the framers. If you want to say that the Supreme Court granted a "right" to own weapons, go right ahead. But don't say that is granted, addressed, affirmed... (choose the word you want) by the 2nd A, because you would be WRONG!
You’ve been rebutted multiple times over and over again. Don’t know what you’re talking about. Every pro gun debate on this thread in my opinion tops yours very easily.
Your interpretation is wrong plain and simple. I already shown how a law graduate who voted for the newly signed constitution expressed it was the right of the people. He was a living person at the actual time who was well educated. Your point is null and void
Why don't anti gun-control activists lobby Congress to restore the well-regulated militia? Maybe they are not as pro Second Amendment as they claim to be and are much more interested in pursuing their own agenda.
Congratulations! You have taken exactly what's wrong with the OP and amplified it to an entirely new level of wrong!
Not sure what your point is. I'm just saying if some people here really believe a well-regulated militia is still necessary to the security of a free state then why don't they lobby Congress to restore that militia? Practice what you preach.
Correct. That's totally irrelevant, save for the fact that you're not as learned as you want to believe. Whom you have never read. In interpreting a statute, "we begin, as we must, with the express language of the statute . . . . Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, resort to legislative history is unnecessary." Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 636 (9th Circuit 2000) "In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Circuit 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475, 120 L. Ed. 2d 379, 112 Supreme Court 2589 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva, 61 F.3d at 1007 (quotations omitted). In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. Id. (quotations omitted). I think we can reach a consensus that the 2nd Amendment's statutory construction is not wholly unambiguous, in keeping with with the most reasonable person standard. We should then look at the legislative intent, but to do that, we do not look at the "Framers of the Constitution." Instead we look at the Bills of Rights as written by each of the 13 State legislatures, because it is from that your first 10 Amendments were crafted. What is the common theme; common thread? What was it those States were trying to protect? Why would they need to protect anything? The States were trying to protect themselves and the People from an all powerful central government. When you form a country, you have three choices: a unitary-State, a confederation, or a federation. A unitary-State was never on the table. Why? Because it's an all powerful central government and no one wanted that, not to mention a unitary-State only works when you have a nation, and the US has never been, is not now, and never will be a nation. Yeah, I know a lot of presidents and others have made reference to "this great Nation blah, blah, blah" but that's just Göbbels-style talking points. It certainly doesn't make it true. Since a unitary-State was off the table, the next logical option was a confederation. Here, the State is supreme and the central government is weak with limited powers. Apparently, that didn't work so well. The only other option was a federation, but to get the States and the People to accept a federation -- where the central government, the States and the People share power equally -- was to incorporate guarantees that the US would always remain a federation. That can only happen if the States and the People -- independently and, if necessary, working together -- are secure at all times from an all powerful central government, and that's only possible if they are armed. Then 2nd Amendment doesn't operate in a vacuum. It works together with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment to ensure the People and the States are secure at all times. And you might say things have changed. No, they haven't. It's the same as it ever was. Government today is no different than government 200 years ago, or 2,000 years ago or 28,800 years ago when kingship first descended from the heavens to Alulim in the city of Eridu. The function of any government is to gain an ever increasing amount of power and when they aren't doing that, they're pushing the envelope or throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. It doesn't happen overnight. Liberals have been trying to crow-bar the US into a unitary-State for decades. One can only push so hard before something breaks, and when it does, it will get ugly. No, fugly. Yeah, fugly. It will be fuglier than you could ever possibly imagine, and you ain't seen much. I could take you on the World Poverty Tour™ and show you real poverty that will make you puke and have nightmares the rest of your life. It'll be worse than that. It's a safe bet 60 Million to 100 Million people (or more) will die, but if that's what it takes to keep the US as a federal republic, then it's worth the trouble. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the phrase. If you were familiar with jurisprudence circa 1780, then you'd know there are certain presumptions, which is not the same thing as an assumption. Take Article I of the Constitution. Does it state the various powers a president has? Um, no, because then Article I would be 19,000 pages long and that's before you got to the other stuff. There's a presumption that the president has all the powers a head-of-State traditionally has, except those that expressly prohibited or restricted. The power to declare war was taken from the president and given to the States and the People, vis-a-vis both houses of Congress. The power to levy taxes -- a traditional power of a head-of-State -- was given to the People vis-a-vis the House. The power to approve or enter into treaties was given to the States vis-a-vis the Senate. Congress and the Judiciary are presumed to have all the powers legislatures and judges have traditionally had since time immemorial, except were those powers are barred or restricted. Your Supreme Court has been saying that since it existed, and what's more, for the last 75 years, your Supreme Court has been saying that presidents have all the powers a head-of-State traditionally had, plus all the powers a president had under the Articles of Confederation, plus all the powers the president had under the Continental Congress, and all the powers a president had under the Stamp Tax Act Congress, that are not expressly barred or restricted by the Constitution. That's called extra-constitutionality. Likewise, both the States and the People have all the powers they traditionally held, plus the powers they had under the Articles of Confederation, Continental Congress and Stamp Tax Act Congress that are not expressly prohibited or restricted by the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it mention the word "privacy?" Nowhere, but you have that right nonetheless, because it's enshrined in the 4th Amendment. You are at all times secure in your person, possessions and property from government intrusion, excepting where probable cause exists and is stated in an affidavit that is signed by a judge to execute a warrant to search and/or seize your person, possessions or property. That means you have a right to privacy. The right to bear arms is not inviolable. It doesn't say the right can never be infringed, but then it doesn't have to, because there is a presumption that those who bear arms are rational, sane, stable, reasonable people who are no threat to society-at-large or themselves. The mentally ill and criminally deranged were historically never allowed to have weapons or participate in a militia or army because they were untrustworthy and a danger to everyone around them. If they were discovered, their weapons were taken away and they were kicked out of the militia/army. We can do that. There's nothing in the Constitution that bars it, but you would have to comply with the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, which means you'd need probable cause, and a neutral forum with an impartial arbiter and allow each side to present their evidence. If the evidence says they're a danger to themselves or others, you take away their weapons. We already do that with convicted felons who have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and a danger to others. While the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that government has to make available to its citizens all of the weapons and weapon systems it develops or procures, there's nothing in the legislative history that even suggests that. More to the point, it says "bear arms." It doesn't say "ride in arms" or "ride on arms" or "fly in arms" or :maintain arms in an atomic blast-resistant earth-covered structure or silo." Those men certainly knew the difference between personal weapons -- "bearing arms" -- and crew-served weapons and weapons platforms. Note they didn't say "the right to bear muskets." That's because those men were smart and knew that technology constantly evolves. That's why they phrased the 1st Amendment the way they did. Speech is relevant; the medium of that speech is not (and they were keenly aware technology would eventually change the medium of speech.) Same with Freedom of the Press. It doesn't say "printing Press" or "type-set Press" because the medium of editorial opinions is irrelevant. So long as the weapon is a personal weapon, ie one that you bear in battle -- "bear arms" -- the type of arms is irrelevant. Also, note that "arms" is plural. I typically carried a rifle and a M1911 (until we switched to the Beretta.) I know Rambut had an M60, but that's Hollyweird and not real-life, and an M60 is a crew-served weapon, not a personal weapon that qualifes as "bearing arms." You say "tank" and some people here pee their panties. They just admitted to the internet world of 3 Billion people that they are historically the world's worst, most incompetent and incapable strategists, tacticians, battlefield commanders and troop leaders. I had a tank. Believe me, when they gave me a scout platoon I was jumpin' for joy. It would take me all of 4 minutes to train a 9 year old and a 10 year to neutralize a tank. I'll give you a hint: The purpose of tanks is to engage and destroy enemy tanks and armored vehicles, not people. Those people who complain about not having nukes, or tanks or planes would be better off sitting at home in a corner playing with themselves.
Several posters here have made a serious attempt at rebutting my point (on the OP). They haven't been successful, but at least they tried. You haven't even tried. I don't think you have even READ it So that's how "valuable" your contributions have been. That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. It was rebutted in another one, but this particular one is not even about that. So you see why I'm saying you didn't even read the OP?
It's the ONLY thing relevant in this thread. But it looks like you agree that it's factual.. So I'll comment on the rest of your post (if there is anything to comment) in the thread where THAT is relevant.
Actually I believe you have been rebutted. I don’t think your argument has a leg to stand on. You type as if a man that made a point but you haven’t. You haven’t come up with a shred of evidence against the interpretation I shown of a living breathing man that actually voted for the constitution. Likewise your argument against others is weak at best. You have made no ground here pal
