No one cares about your experience here. Its irrelevant to the legal analysis at hand. Words have meanings, and interpretation is guided by those meanings. It hinges upon them. You cannot handwave inconveniences away because they make you uncomfortable in your experience. Your comments referenced bad law and expressed that those bad laws were what guided your understanding. Correcting that misunderstanding is necessary. Your comments were addressed, as you self admit you are too ignorant to understand what they address.
You responded to a post of mine which had nothing to do with the legal analysis at hand. I was referring to the intellect and writing ability of the writers of the Second Amendment. My experiences are the background for what I wrote. And writing clearly and concisely is something which I understand very well. I have no idea how or why you headed off into Netherlands Not surprisingly you are wrong. I was not referring to it as a law. It was merely an example of what I was writing about. It is something that most people understand as making perfect sense. Even though, we have freedom of speech, using that freedom at the wrong time and in the wrong way can lead to disastrous consequences. And by the way, saying "you are too ignorant to understand" is an insult of which I am getting very tired. That is the last straw. Next time I will simply report you. .
the Supreme court merely reiterated the intent of the founders. The founders who never intended the federal government have any jurisdiction over what arms private citizens keep and bear
It was assumed that arms would be accessible to the people of the nascent US. However, the second amendment wasn't meant to be a federal 'universal arms right' amendment. It was meant to be a regulation of state militias amendment. That's a different argument than saying SCOTUS has designated the 2ND as a universal arms right amendment for all Americans in, for example, 2008 (or the mid twentieth century). SCOTUS gets things wrong, too.
the Second Amendment is very clear. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does not say that a militia was necessary. It only gives it as a reason.
I responded to a post of yours which referenced bad law as an example of permissible restrictions. Your reference to their writing ability and intellect is of no account, and has no bearing on legal analysis or interpretation. What the sentence says and means under the actual rules of the language it was penned in at the time it was penned are what controls the meaning of the sentence. Not your vague experience, not how intelligent a penman was. Writing clearly and concisely is something you understand very well, you say, while mangling a euphemism. Its an example you used of something that would be permissible and from which you draw an inference about other permissible restrictions. You very much would be referring to it as law in that instance, unless you're saying that your lack of understanding extends to that as well. In which case: Please take the correction as I grow tired of having to point out so basic a fact to you. It was your self admission that you didn't understand. Ignorance is a temporary condition stemming from a lack of specific knowledge and is not typically the fault of a person. It is a condition which you could cure by simply googling the Schenk case and "is it good law" in the same sentence. As stated. Which you refuse to do, as you have stated. Pointing that out is not an insult.
I'm sure the reason why you emphasize the last 13 words of the 2ND amendment and don't even mention the first 12 words of the 2ND amendment is because the last 13 words sums up your argument. The last 13 words of the 2ND were put into the passed amendment so that the federal arms amendment wouldn't interfere with any arms regulations in state constitutions. What won't be infringed (by the federal 2ND Amendment) is the arms rights in state constitutions. BTW, the first 12 words of the 2ND reads (and is the crux of the meaning of the 2ND) "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Oh, and you need to read some history of the debate and passage of the 2ND amendment. For one thing, J. Madison introduced the wording of the 2ND and it was Madison's desire to have a federal arms amendment similar to Virginia's state constitution on arms ownership (which was universal arms rights) but the 2ND was debated and debated and chopped up linguistically until the passed version became a regulation of state militias when it passed the Senate.
Please go read Heller so you understand what a prefatory and operative clause pair are and what they each mean to the sentence as a whole.
The 2ndA as written is very clear. It is not conditional. When writing a set of instructions, it is bad writing to make the intent of that writing dependent on another document or circumstances without that document or circumstances being specifically identified. There are no such document or circumstances identified.
I know SCOTUS' ruling in 2008 with Heller. I'm just saying the Heller interpretation was woefully inadequate when considering the original meaning of the 2ND when passed by the first Senate.
no it wasn't. the entire point of the bill of rights was a restriction on the government. it was not to give the federal government any more powers than those included in Article One Section Eight
I can't make you understand. You have to do the research. Especially when you have misconceptions of the meaning of the 2ND when passed by the first Senate.
yeah Heller should have struck all federal regulation but Kennedy wouldn't agree to that and Scalia was unwilling to do that too
Translation You know you cannot demonstrate your claim to be true. Why do you continue to make claims you know you cannot demonstrate to be true?
The restriction of the federal 2ND was to ensure the federal 2ND didn't infringe on arms rights set up by state constitutions...The rights of the people (as set forth in state constitutions) will not be infringed.
Correct. Like the current ban on federal abortion, arms regulations should've been left up to the states. BTW, I notice a totally different crowd up in arms about the possibility of having states decide arms rights than the crowd being up in arms about states deciding abortion rights.
