What Exactly Were Our Founding Fathers' Intention With The "Right To Bear Arms"???

What purpose does the first clause have then, if not to limit the context of the second clause? It cannot be null and void from inception.

 

I second that.

 

Failing to advance your Cause is simply surrendering the point and the argument. Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

 

We need not advance our cause anymore. Your point is so dead we need to simply let it die along with you.

 

Seems to me it's failed. The police and military are easily well enough equipped and organised to overcome armed resistance among our population.

Plus, our freedom has become quite illusory under the present system. We are under the government's thumb.

 

Justice Scalia DC v. Heller explained that quite well and very clearly in the majority opinion of the District of Columbia v. Heller case - the one that secured the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, irrespective of militia service:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

As you can see, the prefatory clause doesn't exist, as you claim, to limit the second clause. Instead it exists to express the purpose or reason for the second clause. Justice Scalia makes it very clear that the purpose of that clause is NOT to limit the second, and if you go further in the decision, he provides plenty of references explaining why that is a proper interpretation of that clause.

So, if you wish to show that the first clause exists to limit the second, you will need to disprove every one of the sources that Scalia used to support his position, and will need to disprove the majority ruling itself.

 

That decision seems to omit two simple rules of construction:

And, should be considered null and void from Inception.

 

The two parts do conspire to a common end. That is clearly explained in the portion of the ruling that I quoted. If you want further explanation, read the rest of the ruling, and the references that Justice Scalia makes. Those references explain even better why that particular method of construction was commonly used during the time when the amendment was written, and what that usage means.

 

There is no basis to consider null and void, any Part of our Second Amendment; thus, a purpose and that End, is what the second clause must conspire to achieve. That means, it must limit the second clause to the context of the first clause and that End.

 

What makes you think that the first clause is being voided? It isn't. Like I said, it is still considered, still serves a purpose, and still has the same effect on the second clause that it originally did. By claiming that it must limit the second, you are attempting to change its meaning and purpose. There is no reason for the first clause to have to limit the second. It still give the purpose - the justification or reason behind - the second clause. Stating the justification for something doesn't automatically limit it to exclusively or only that justification. The implementation of it can go far beyond its original purpose.

What you are looking for is a limiting clause - something that specifically locks the second clause down to a specific use. That would be phrased differently - more like the other amendments. For instance, consider the third amendment:

Here you have very great examples of limiting clauses. Consider the one in the middle "without the consent of the Owner". This specifically is tied to the quartering of soldiers, and makes it clear that this clause limits the rest of the amendment. If it was phrased "Being that owner's consent is critical to a free people, no soldier shall be quartered in any house except in a manner proscribed by law." then owner's consent would no longer be a limit, but a purpose for the second clause. The second clause would apply in all circumstances, and soldiers would not be able to be quartered in people's houses, even with the owner's consent.

 

SCOTUS IN HELLER V DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

 

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

The 2 post immediately preceding this post are from the SCOTUS Heller v DC decision. The words are there for everyone to see.

I would be interested in having our antagonist re-post both of those renditions highlighting the exact words or phrases or sentences which make him so intransigent about what they mean.

 

I will wait patiently to see just how Daniel will try to obfuscate those posts, and assuredly he will try to obfuscate them.

I took him off of ignore so I can see how hilarious he is in his approach.

 

I guess you missed it; what common Purpose or End does ignoring the first clause serve, on a not-for-profit basis?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, never has and never will; otherwise we did not need Any of our Militia Acts. Any questions?

 

Any Infringement on the alleged right to keep and bear Arms renders paragraph (1) simply announcing a purpose but not limiting the operative clause in that second paragraph.

 

You've been refuted.

- - - Updated - - -

yet it's the law of the land in all 50 states.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

 

Nope; you never have and probably never will; unless, you become more well regulated and muster with dictionary and thesaurus "militias".

 

repeatedly proven false.

 

You were asked to highlight specifically what in Para (2) eliminates the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We all know you are wrong in your assertion that the limitations of Para (2) make the personal rights based on a militia, yet no where does it say that in the paragraph. If you don't post exactly the verbiage you believe does eliminate the rights of the people we know you have finally conceded the point. Hallalujah!

 

repeatedly proven false.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false

 

Where in my post, or in the Heller decision does anyone talk about ignoring the first clause?

 

He won't answer you. It is not his style. He will ignore us for a while than start over from the beginning. He is a troll and most of his posts are baiting.

 

So you discount the SCOTUS decision? What about, "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53." What part do you believe the court did not hold?

Why do you believe we do not need a militia?

 

Not only did SCOTUS hold that it is the peoples right to keep and bear arms without a connection to a militia, but para (3) goes so far that keeping such weapon does not have to be locked up or with a trigger lock.

"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.​