Sandy Hook- It's the guns fault, it's always the guns fault.

I have used my gun to defend my life on several occasions. Vegas was a failure of government to protect those people. I don't put myself in situations where I need to rely on government to protect me. The most dangerous places in the US today are gun free zones.

 

You admit its a prefatory clause, but you allege it acts to modify the operative clause....
Please try harder to come up with a better argument, dealing with you is becoming boring

 

You think if all the concert goers had guns they'd have been able to protect themselves? How? Everyone starts shooting in the general direction of the 32nd floor of the hotel? Most of those people had probably been drinking, too.

 

Vegas was a situation that never could have been prevented. The harsh truth of the matter is that we, as Americans, got off easy when he decided to use ARs with bump stocks instead of a belt fed machine gun or air plane. Both of which he had the access to or means to acquire.

 

Seems you missed the points altogether.

 

Got off easy, eh?

So I guess ultimately, there is no solution to stop the killing.

All these millions of guns people buy to protect themselves, the billions of dollars, won't do cr*p.

 

Your first claim, in particular regarding California, is in full contrast to recent articles stating what I wrote was true.

Secondly- we decide to tell a victim of a crime that failing to report the crime IS a crime, with fines and imprisonment? The, blame them for the fact a crime was committed with the use of stolen property?
It's true that some people don't report crimes- because they are sure that the police will do nothing more than file a report, and it will be both a hassle and a waste of time.

Long ago, two men known to us stole a S&W revolver. Cops got names, descriptions, serial number. Never heard from them again.
My son had a woman at his house watching a show, and fell asleep on the couch. When he woke, there was a $1K Desert Eagle customized pistol gone along with cash and a rifle. Police again- said they couldn't find her and did Nada. Then over a year later, my son saw her in a club, and called police. They asked her if she knew anything about it- and she said no, so they said "sorry", and left. End of case.
It's easy to file charges against honest people over procedural things, but to catch crooks, cops have to work. That seems to meet with objections in many places over something of such low value....
Enforcement should go after the crimes that cause harm and put people at risk- not the ones who failed to do the right paperwork on time. You don't have time to hear all the stories I can tell you like that.

The people who should face penalty are the agencies responsible for enforcing the laws who fail to pursue cases where there is not enough money or publicity to seem worthwhile. Small crooks become big crooks because complacent enforcement of actual criminals is so poor.

 

So if we go with your logic I guess J.P. Morgan is also responsible?

 

How so?

If you, for example, attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people with "mental problems", how is that not an infringement?

 

Violent crime > Gun crime > Guns per 100 residents

Japan 0.6
Ranked 158th.

United States 88.8 Ranked 1st. 148 times more than Japan

Murders with firearms per million
Japan 0.369
United States 32.57 88 times more than Japan

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control
"Japan
Japan has what may be the closest any country comes to “zero-tolerance” of gun ownership – a policy that experts say contribute its enviously low rates of gun crime. As of 2011, legal gun ownership stood at 271,000, according to police records, in a country of 127 million people.

There were six reported gun deaths in Japan in 2014, according to the National Police Agency. In 2006 just two people were killed in gun attacks; when the number rose to 22 in 2007 it prompted a bout of national soul-searching.
In his seminal 1993 paper for the Asia Pacific Law Review, whose conclusions still hold true more than 20 years later, David Kopel described Japanese gun control laws as “the most stringent in the democratic world”.

The 1958 law on the possession of swords and firearms states: “No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.” Among the few exceptions are shotguns, but here too, the restrictions would cause outrage among American gun owners."

 

How Japan has almost eradicated gun crime
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38365729

 

They had a keen sense that McDonalds would definitely alter the 'well regulated' bit later on and didn't want to see massive bloats wobbling around wearing guns and red caps with meaningless slogans on them?

 

I know, the operative word is right there in front of everyone's eyes - amendment.

 

Aside from being a nation where the culture is thousands of years old, Japan also has a much higher level of honor integrity built into it's culture and people- They know that it is the people who regulate themselves first. They know there IS NO regulator that works better, and honor is a highly valued characteristic there. It has been such that if you dishonor yourself- you are obligated to kill yourself; commit Hari-Kari. In America, if we do something dishonorable and it works, we congratulate ourselves for "winning". We have many laws because so many of us refuse to regulate ourselves- blaming everything wrong in their lives on somebody else, glossing over their own transgressions quickly. The attitude is that is up to society to control my behavior.... much as a parent is expected to control a child, but we are poor parents.

Another measure of this is Lawyers per capita. That tells us how quickly we tend to be offended, how adversarily we think, how often we think others owe us satisfaction.

Japan has 7 lawyers per 100,000 population.
England is far more contentious by comparison; they have 83. Second in the world.
We have.... 287. 41 times more than Japan.

We are in dire need of self-control, of personal integrity and character, of full acceptance of personal responsibility- and there is no way to acquire that by passing laws. Those are things that are bred into us by the parentage and culture we grow up in, and that is something we have done very poorly in the last few generations.

Raising children could also be described as building adults. In order to make them solid and strong, able to stand on their own by the age of maturity- the parents must have the right qualities to give. Just as an ametuer carpenter would build weak houses, just as poor bloodlines and characteristics in breeding cattle or horses results in poor bloodlines and characteristics in offspring- Poor parenting results in offspring that are poor parents. One of the prime reasons we are botching that job is that we started holding society responsible for the resulting lack of character in our children, instead of ourselves.

That won't change until we look to ourselves, and demand that each of us behave with honor. In Japan, that is the culture of nation. Self-respect comes before peer respect, and you ARE accountable for your own conduct, and holding yourself to respectable values.

That means you don't stand up as a politician and demand followers seek out those who disagree, in restaurants or anywhere else, and try to run them out, tell them they are not wanted anywhere. You don't support persecution for political purposes over just prosecution for actual crimes. You don't beat up people who come to the university to speak on a philosophy you don't support. You don't ask for something for nothing, and expect someone else to pay your way. But that not only happens in America- it gets applauded and promoted as reasonable. Of course, we have a lot of angry people- they have not been given all they have been let to believe they are entitled to. Like small spoiled children, some will cry, some will throw tantrums- and some will strike out violently.

We created this mess by failing to respect ourselves, failing to respect others and rejecting self-discipline. It won't change until we correct that.

 

The first clause limits the context for the second clause.

 

By definition, prefatory clauses do not effect or modify or limit operative clauses.

Operative clauses can be understood just as well without the prefatory clause. Take away the prefatory clause and see if that doesn't help you to better grasp the sentence.

 

I don't ignore them. They were the precursors to the COTUS.

 

By definition, the introductory clause defines the context for the rest of the object of the sentence.

 

You must be ignoring them with your view of our Second Article of Amendment. Natural and Individual rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. Having that, Due Process, recourse available precludes your understanding of our Second Article of Amendment.

 

By definition, prefatory clauses have no effect to modify or limit operative clauses.

 

Is his line of business killing people like weapon manufacturers, the NRA, the gun lobbyists, etc?

 

That does not make any rational sense. Our Second Amendment is Express not Implied. Simply expressing the first clause must have some effect on the context for the second clause.

Our Second Amendment makes this a State's sovereign right:

 

Its how the rule of grammar regarding prefatory and operative clauses works and makes perfect logical sense. Its just doesn't agree with you so you hate it.
Now you see why it fell out of fashion to use, its confusing to people who don't know what they're doing.

 

only if we don't need to quibble. here, we do.

our Second Amendment really does limit the federal government's authority over denying and disparaging the citizenry in the several States, from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

The rules of grammar don't change because you want to quibble. The operative clause is what rules and its about an individual right, just like the other portions of the BOR that use "the people".