That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep arms as well as the right to bear them. So in other words, everyone needs to vote for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump) because the Democrats mean to overturn the Constitution and abolish our freedom. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment is composed of two independent phrases. Cite for this extensive thought into the precise wording? The only way that Scalia ignores history is by constraining the Heller ruling so that it does not protect our right to have military weapons. Other than that, his history is just fine. Nonsense. I rebut your untrue claims all the time. And I do it without relying on Heller. The only times I refer to Heller are when I am correcting one of your untrue claims about Heller.
Connecting the right to keep and bear arms to the militia means that we have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons. They didn't think they needed to make that clear given that it was already understood by everyone that the right to keep and bear arms covers home defense and sport shooting. Not at all. They mandated that there always be a well-regulated militia because they wanted to ensure that the government would never neglect the organized militia. What they wanted to do was ensure that the government would not abuse its power to arm the militia by using that power to prevent the militia from being armed. They achieved this aim by protecting the preexisting right to keep and bear arms from infringement. This ensured that the government would never be able to disarm the militia. The fact private self defense was not foremost in their thinking does not change the fact that it is an integral part of the right that they protected.
Not how I would have worded it, but OK. It specifically refers to an individual right by name, and states that that individual right shall not be infringed.
It's implicit, as shown on the OP here (BTW, THIS is the thread to discuss the linguistic structure) The structure of the 2nd A is, to an English speaker who listens to the phrase without a pre-existing bias, exactly the same as "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", as is demonstrated on the OP.
That is incorrect. "While" is non-existent. The OP shows no such thing. That is incorrect. There is no "because" in the Second Amendment either.
As I said in the OP, "...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!!!" "Causal" means CAUSE. As in "because". Which is short for "be the cause of..." In other words, "because" is implicit in EVERY SINGLE phrase in English. It will be interpreted as the CAUSE by anybody who reads the phrase. There are NO exceptions (see examples on the OP). If there is one, you would be able to SHOW it. So saying that the framers made this ONE exception to English grammar when they wrote the 2nd A is like saying they were either playing a joke, or the were being deceitful to the American people. Both excuses are absolute nonsense. And you can't dismiss that fact by simply repeating "no it isn't"
tell us what the historical context surrounded the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of rights. that alone flushes your opinion down the porcelain device
Gladly. Here you go http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ And if your response is going to be of the type "you're wrong!" or "that's bullcrap!" (or similar) with no content, save it! Not interested. I'm only interested if you can actually rebut any of it with real arguments.
Note that even if there is an implicit "because" (and I'm not conceding that there is) the result is still a Constitutional mandate that a well-regulated militia is always necessary. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" = mandate that a well-regulated militia is always necessary. "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state" = mandate that a well-regulated militia is always necessary.
and you can read that as saying a well regulated militia is a necessary evil to keep the nation secure but because it can be deleterious, the citizens have to be armed to prevent the well regulated militia from becoming a menace
What I said is based on a scientific linguistic analysis. What you say is based on wishful thinking. I provided multiple examples in English in which the implicit "because" is ALWAYS present. In NONE of those example is it implicit that the prefatory clause is permanent. In NO sentence in the English language of that same grammatical structure would that be interpreted as permanent. The example provided could NEVER be interpreted to imply that the ship is not always docked, or that John always stands on a chair... etc. It's exactly the contrary. What the sentences evoque in the mind of an average English speaker is the idea that they are NOT permanent. So, other than you just... saying it... linguistics, facts... and just plain understanding of the English language, do not support your claim. But, of course, when you have a pre-established idea in your mind that has been hammered in day after day by pro-gun propagandists, what a linguistic expression would mean to a normal person becomes foggy. And no amount of logic is going overcome the propaganda.
That is incorrect. When a sentence says that something is so, that sentence is stating that it is so. When a statute states that something is necessary, that statute is mandating that it is necessary. Untrue claims are not logic.
what we are dealing with is the typical leftist attitude that the Constitution and bill of rights should change-without the use of the amendment process-based on "current" whims. Notice, he never said that a militia was not necessary when the second amendment was passed and adopted so he concedes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was guaranteed then. What he is arguing is that in HIS OPINION the well regulated militia is NOW not needed and thus the right evaporates. It's typical "living document" bullshit that the left has used since FDR to change the bill of rights to permit the creeping crud of cancerous collectivism
Laws don't dictate that a circumstance is necessary. Exactly the opposite. Circumstances dictate that the LAW is necessary. The 2nd A doesn't create a necessity for a well regulated militia. REALITY does (or did, in the 18th century). And the need for a well regulated militia created the 2nd A. NOT the other way around. This idea that a statute mandates it's own necessity is self-defeating, and so obviously misguided, that any unbiased person reading this will immediately detect it as nonsense, without me needing to rebut it. It's notorious how you have changed your arguments throughout this conversation. Ending now with this nonsense about the law CREATING a necessity, instead of a necessity creating a law. So if any casual reader happens to follow this discussion, they are left with one side citing a linguistic analysis, with examples, and based on science (I didn't do this analysis, the linguists and philologists in the link I gave did). Not to mention, of course, their OWN understanding of the English language. On the other, you have a claim based on nothing but wishful thinking. And this last argument is so clearly absurd that it doesn't require ANY effort on my part to explain to this casual reader the absurdity, as they will immediately detect it themselves.
Yes they do. That is the whole point of laws. They mandate that certain things be done (or not be done). Perhaps in some cases. Although that necessity would be a question of personal opinion. The Second Amendment says otherwise. It mandates that there be a well-regulated militia, That is incorrect. A militia was not necessary then. The Framers could have chosen to defend the nation with a standing army. The decision to rely on a militia was a choice. I didn't say that the Second Amendment mandates that the Second Amendment is necessary. But a law that did say such a thing would not be self defeating. I change my arguments because you keep raising different ideas to justify violating the Second Amendment, and each time I address why the current proposal is wrong. Reality is hardly nonsense. When a law mandates something, it makes that something necessary for as long as the law remains in force. You have done more than just cite a linguistic analysis (although you did do that too). You've also proposed a wide-ranging variety of ideas for violating the Second Amendment. I don't have any objections to your language analysis. Although I do still maintain that grammar rules do not overrule legal history when the two conflict while interpreting the law. What I object to are your various proposals to violate the Second Amendment. That is incorrect. My arguments have been based on knowledge of the law, knowledge of legal history, and in a few cases knowledge of language. Each time you propose a new rationale for violating the Second Amendment, the proposal is wrong in its own unique way, so different arguments are required to address it. That when a law mandates something, that thing is mandated for as long as the law remains in force, is hardly absurd.
I had prepared a response to this. But looks like I forgot to click "Post" That is not the meaning of the word "circumstance". And even less in the context in which we (you and I) were using it BEFORE this strawman. The circumstance is the absolute clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary, to the security of a free state..." THIS circumstance makes what follows necessary. The Amendment doesn't "mandate" that the well regulated militia be necessary. It just indicates the fact, and then provides the "remedy". Which is to not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Here you go back to the original meaning of "circumstance". "Circumstance" refers to the conditions that produce or are relevant to an event. In this case, the event is the main clause. Article 1, clauses 15 and 16 mandate that there be a militia that is organized, overseen, ... by Congress. The 2nd A simply reacts to it. Wrong!!!!! That has nothing to do with this thread but it's historically wrong. There was not much of a standing army at the time. A militia was most definitely necessary. And it's what the Amendment SAYS. In NO context could the conjunction "being" be interpreted in English, now or ever, to mandate anything. Anyway... that is in a different thread. And I don't think even posters on your side of the argument would agree with this. I just think you abandoned any attempt to continue a serious discussion. You're just willy-nilly making up your own definitions of words, that no English speaker... not even posters on your side, would accept. And which NOBODY has ever used like you do.
Yes it is. When a law mandates that something be done, it is saying that that something must be done. "Pointing out the truth" is hardly a strawman. That is incorrect. The circumstance was the fear that the government would neglect the militia. This fear was addressed by having the first part of the Second Amendment mandate that the government always keep the militia in top fighting shape. Yes it does. It is clearly stated in the first half of the amendment. The remedy is the mandate to always have a well-regulated militia. The requirement that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed is from a different part of the Second Amendment. That is incorrect. Those clauses allow Congress to do it, but there is no mandate. The mandate was created by the first half of the Second Amendment. That is incorrect. The Continental Army very much existed, and if the Founding Fathers had wanted us to have a standing army, they could have continued the Continental Army instead of standing it down. The decision to rely on a militia instead of a standing army was 100% a choice. That is incorrect. When a law says that something is necessary, that law is mandating that that something be done. It doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with me. I am still correct. Bad guess. Notice how I am still correcting all your untrue claims. That is incorrect. I am pointing out what words actually mean. The Founding Fathers used these words that way.
"being necessary" is not how you would express in English that something must be done, in a Constitutional Amendment. Militias were necessary BEFORE the 2nd A. The 2nd A did not make them necessary. Not "the government". The STATES (this is explained in the "History 101..." threads). Because they were necessary. The 2nd A did not make them necessary. It just preserved the right of the people to form them. At least while they were necessary. In other words the need (the "necessary" attribute) for militias preceded the 2nd A. You appear to be arguing that the 2nd A created it. It did not!
the second amendment created NOTHING. It merely acknowledged a right the founders saw as pre-existing the constitution and one which Article One Section Eight had no relevance to
Well.. It created a restriction on the actions on government, and in doing so, protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It certainly did not -grant- that right, which would still exist even of the 2nbd were repealed.
it created no right-it merely reiterates that the federal government has no power-whatsoever to infringe on a right the founders all believed existed since the dawn of time.
so you agree that the federal government has no authority to interfere with private citizens' actions concerning the keeping and bearing of arms
No. But I agree that they have no authority to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms if a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
