You have no basis in fact for your claim. Demonstrate otherwise. You have no basis in fact for your claim. Demonstrate otherwise.
The book is just some guy who describes the debates of the First Congress, baselessly imagines what everyone's intentions were, and presents the results of his imagination as if it were fact. Using "Google book search" I was able to pull these two quotes from the text of the book: "Vining's committee also revised Madison's militia amendment--which had proposed an absolute individual right to bear arms--to make clear that the amendment applied specifically to an organized, officially sanctioned body: 'A well-regulated militia being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The intent was to make clear that in a country that was deeply suspicious of a permanent military establishment, nationalized state militias were to serve as the front line of defense against foreign invasion." and "The Senate version of the militia amendment further underscored the legislators' clear original intention, by deleting the elastic phrase 'composed of the body of the people.' While the Senators continued to see the militia as the first line of national defense against foreign enemies, they made it even clearer that this did not mean a force composed of the mass of 'the people,' but one limited to men sanctioned by the state." Both quotes have rather obvious errors. The big error in the first quote is the belief that the intent of the first half of the amendment somehow overrides the intent of the second half of the amendment. The big error in the second quote is imagining that deleting the part about "the body of the people" was somehow a mandate against such an outcome. In reality what it did was leave Congress' options open. They could organize the entire body of the people, or they could organize a select militia as Alexander Hamilton advocated. And as it turned out, Congress still elected to organize the entire body of the people when they set up the first militia.
The right was established thousands of years ago. The Second Amendment merely protects a preexisting right from infringement. He's done that research, thus his posts correcting your untrue statements. We've all read it. That's why we keep correcting your untrue statements. It required the government to always keep the militia in top fighting shape. It forbade the government from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Well-regulated merely meant that the militia in question was in top fighting shape. That is incorrect. SCOTUS has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. "The people" does not refer to state constitutions. The Second Amendment is in no danger of infringing itself. A book full of incorrect claims is hardly a reliable source. That is incorrect. The federal restriction is to prevent infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Yes it was. That is incorrect. The Supreme Court was correct to rule that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right held by the people. And rightly so. That is the part of the Second Amendment that is relevant to his point. Of course he has researched it. That's why he keeps pointing out that you are wrong. Your argument is entirely incorrect. Yes it was. Nothing incorrect about it. That's what it says.
Like many who don't understand constitutional theory, you confuse the scope of the right with its application
No such violation occurred. Just the opposite. What Justice Scalia did was restrict it from there. Tying the right to keep and bear arms to the militia means we all have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons. Scalia wrongly limited the Heller ruling to only cover weapons that are suitable for self defense (and also those that there is no justification for restricting). That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people. Cite? Not really. The OP focusses excessively on "bear" and largely ignores "keep". It's also why legal interpretation is done by attorneys and not by philologists. Just the opposite. Scalia restricted the meaning. The Second Amendment says that we all have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons. What a lawyer knows is how to interpret the law. I'll take your word for it, but note that I do not care what a philologist says. Hardly. I do not share the opinion that civil liberties are obsolete. No such violation occurred.
'It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit." District of Columbia v Heller [emphasis added] As I said, Scalia did acknowledge that it refers to a military scenario, but arbitrarily extended it from there. But it doesn't matter because the military scenario is the ONLY one relevant to this thread. You most definitely need to read my sig. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ It doesn't focus on either. The "keep" part, as philologists point out, refers to "maintain in good working condition". But the expression is inseparable. And Scalia should have STUCK with the legal interpretation. Instead, he went into musings in areas like linguistics in which he demonstrated he was completely clueless. Well.... this thread is about what the Amendment, as written and approved by the many states, meant to ANY educated person in the 18th Century (and the framers as well as those who approved it, WERE educated people). Which is in the realm of linguistics. Not law. You would be arguing that those who approved it didn't understand what they were reading. And, other than linguistic science, there is no possible counter-argument to that. So if you don't care about linguistics, then we are wasting our time. Thanks for playing...
You're quoting versions which didn't pass. The version that passed is analyzed in Heller, including its history, including its passage. Enough.
Nothing in the bill of rights grants any powers to the federal government. The bill of rights exclusively limits the federal government. The feds already had a plenary power to regulate state militias, explicitly, in Art 1 Sec 8. They'd had that power for years, they didn't need to add it post facto with the bill of rights. Your argument is non-sensical and demonstrably false.
the claim that the second amendment grants the federal government some gun control powers is such obvious bovine excrement that none of the anti gun democrat proposals to regulate firearms tried to rely on that nonsense
Whose scope is in 2A other than the ones in the first congress who originally passed it? The application of 2A is contrary to the scope of the original passers of 2A.
That there was no need to extend or concentrate regulations on state militias because regulating state militias was already in The Constitution is non-sensical. For example, The Constitution was conceived just a few years after The Articles of Confederation because the articles didn't address chronic needs in US federal gov't. An amendment is a need to re-write or change The Constitution...What're you implying about the motive of the passing of 2A by the first Senate?
Dude, the federal gov't was granted (more) rights to regulate state militias in 2A. BTW, 2A is outdated since a federal standing army protects the federal gov't now.
They had a PLENARY POWER already in Art 1 Sec 8. Can you tell the class what a PLENARY POWER is? It would reveal why your first paragraph's serial argument is complete and total horse ****. I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that the plain text of the amendment as written in the language it was written in under the rules that existed in that language at the time it was written protects (not creates) an individual right to keep and bear arms. You can see the incredibly long form explanation, with accompanying citations which you can also look up and read if you like, in Heller. You can likewise read Bruen and follow the citations there. You can likewise read McDonald and do the same. And Caetano. Etc.
No provision in the bill of rights grants any powers to the federal government. Read the damn document.
So, the sole reason for issuing 2A by the first Senate was to give unconditional arms rights to Americans?
I disagree. the 2A restricts the federal government from interfering with PRIVATE CITIZENS keeping and bearing arms. Hardly outdated, Y Ou are buying into the nonsense that the only purpose of the 2A is to allow state militias
Please at least attempt to read and understand the post you're replying to before you formulate your response. The 2a, as stated, does not give or "create" a right. It's function was to recognize the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. See Cruickshank for a discussion on how it doesn't create anything and why that nuanced distinction is important. In any event you only go to secondary authority (like a discussion of intent by those that penned it) if the primary authority (the text itself) is vague and unclear. The 2a's plain text is perfectly clear. Like cut crystal. It is a prefatory and operative clause pair. The operative clause, which as we know from the rules of grammar can be read without the prefatory clause and have the same meaning, is: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. the federal government has no proper power in that area.
Yes, 2A said as much. Two-A wouldn't infringe on the rights of states to set arms regulations. Why don't you read the history and the motivations of the Senators who passed 2A?
