The fact that linguistics uses the scientific method is most definitely what makes it a science. But now you have accepted that linguistics uses the scientific method. But it's off-topic. What the F... hell does translation have to do with linguistics???? You thought that linguistics was about translations? No wonder you're completely lost on this subject. Ok... anyway... It's off-topic., If you have anything to say about the topic of this thread, go for it. If not then that means my argument stands.
I don't see how Heller did the second thing. Federal gun laws are still on the books. Not that I'd mind if it had done so.
Their decision does not override the Constitution. The National Guard are sworn members of a standing army. A standing army is never a militia. That is incorrect. Non-militiamen have the right to have arms for private self defense. I've not seen anyone here run away. The Second Amendment doesn't have to say anything about private uses in order to protect them. Private self defense is part of the right to keep and bear arms, and the the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms includes keeping and bearing arms for private self defense. That costs money. Besides, the issue in many states is not that the militia does not exist, but that it is unarmed. If you are willing to pay all my legal fees, I'll join the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force and then sue for my right as a militiaman to have hand grenades, a bazooka, and a full-auto assault rifle. It also originally protected the right of non-militiamen to have guns for private self defense. Upholding the Second Amendment (even if only in part) is hardly hijacking it.
No it hasn't. The Framers could have had a standing army had they wanted to do so. They chose to rely on a well-regulated militia as much as possible. The Second Amendment says that they are necessary. Therefore, until such time as the Second Amendment is repealed (good luck with that), well-regulated militias are necessary. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment still says that well-regulated militias are necessary. Except, that's not what the Second Amendment says. The Second Amendment says that: a) the government must always keep up a well-regulated militia to protect the state, and b) the government must never infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including that part that covers private self defense. That is incorrect. The fact that the Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms validates the Heller ruling. But not due to standing. Actually there are two independent main clauses in the Second Amendment. They said nothing of the sort. The word "because" is not found anywhere in the Second Amendment. No, it is what the OP claims. Yes there is. Militiamen are individuals. That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms includes private self defense. No it couldn't. Writing it that way would give it an entirely different meaning. No. It is claimed in the OP. We have a dependable standing army today. The Second Amendment still says that it is necessary to have a well-regulated militia. Militia training is indeed important. A well-regulated militia is still necessary. The Second Amendment says so. That is incorrect. "Upholding the law" is neither "activism" nor "legislation". Yes it does. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, including the part that covers private self defense. You have not demonstrated such. You have merely made erroneous claims. The thread proves nothing of the sort. It merely makes an erroneous claim to that effect. Alexander Hamilton seemed to think that "well-regulated" meant that the militia could fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of unorganized individuals. "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured." https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186 To the average legal scholar it means something entirely different. Except it doesn't. What they interpreted is entirely different from what you claim. Luckily, basic English isn't at all relevant to interpreting the Second Amendment.
Fine. Tell that to the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment says nothing about that one way or the other. And Hamilton made clear that that kind of unity was best achieved by entrusting the federal government with the power to regulate the militia. Also in Federal 29: "This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is therefore with the most evident propriety that the plan of the Convention proposes to empower the union 'to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' " So the militia would be well-regulated if it was regulated by the federal government.
This thread is about the linguistic structure of the 2nd A. Your post is more about historical aspects. So I'll respond to it in a more appropriate thread. Yes. And you either rebut it or you are implicitly accepting it. You don't say.... So how do you think our forefathers communicated to their peers, the people of their time ... and us... what the Amendment is about? Some sort of psychic powers? Unbelievable!
Your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is faulty. MAKE THE RIGHTS VIOLATING BASTARDS PAY: Federal Judge Rules Washington, DC is Liable for Post-Heller Wrongful Firearm Arrests.
I'm not talking about "interpreting". I'm talking about what the 2nd A literally says. BTW, you seem fixated with this "fake news" line. What I'm saying is not "news".... fake or otherwise.
My brother has a 6-year old son - he argues the same way you do - he just says something and then declares himself right.
If your only counterargument to the 6 year old is "go convince SCOTUS", I can understand why he would declare himself right. So if you can't provide counterarguments to even a 6 year old, what makes you think that not providing them here will make you look good?
You aren't "reading it" you are pretending it says the opposite of what it says. Some Progs do that a lot.
It doesn't really matter what linguistic game you're playing. The Second Amendment is very clear when it states a right and who it belongs to. The Supreme Court went further to declare more than once than it is an individual right. If you think your linguistics game is good enough to take it to the Supreme Court.
Your claims are fake news. District of Columbia v. Heller, recognized as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. It did not create that right. McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court recognized that this right applied against the states. Our government does not CREATE rights, our rights are inherent and WE created our government. Your claims are a form of idolatry where you create an entity and then claim it has powers independent of yourself. It doesn't. Wrenn v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit struck down a requirement that recognized that gun owners are not required to show “good reason” for a concealed carry permit. Just last week, D.C. lost another major ruling under the Second Amendment where they pretended that they could make laws that violate citizens rights at will that would remain in force until the Court struck them down. They are now exposed to hundreds of millions in damages for their unconstitutional rights violating scheme. The Court will speak again on the issue this term: N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) claims that a concealed-carry handgun license requires a showing of “proper cause.” "Lower courts upheld the law but there are ample constitutional concerns over the vague New York standard like showing that you are “of good moral character.”" https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/...n-guns-abortions-and-free-speech/#more-179133 Look for anti-Gun Nazi's to determine than anyone who wants to CC don't have "good moral character".
Madison's original draft was: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country." The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause. The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. If the Constitution had an amendment written: "A well regulated roadway being the best means of transportation, the right of the people to own cars shall not be infringed", would anyone assume that the only people who could own cars are those who drive them on government roads?
Rather than engage in semantic gymnastics, I'll just go with the Constitution. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to interpret what the Constitution actually means... and in Heller v US they established the the "militia" wording in the Constitution's 2d Amendment in no way restricts or limits the rights of Americans to own and bear arms. I am a lot more comfortable agreeing with the established authority of the Supreme Court than siding with the opposing view of an internet forum chatter.
Our military no more eclipses private firearm ownership than public transportation does to privately owned vehicles. And extended educations do not suck the common sense from the general populations intellect.
So you want the military defending you with soup spoons and straws. I never cease to be amazed how civilians are clueless about the military. Spend some time in Baghdad, or maybe Tel Aviv. Hear the explosions... see the body parts... and you might understand.
Either I wasn't clear or you don't understand my post. Many say our military renders the idea of an armed militia moot, and an armed populace obsolete. I think this is as senseless as to say that public transportation makes private vehicles obsolete. Or that those with extended educations should do our thinking or make our choices for us. Heck, even God, the greatest of all, honors free choice and bestows the power of the priesthood across his kingdom. Salvation isn't limited to the learned, the rich, and the strong. But is offered to all like the suns light across the day. Besides, the breakdown of the family is the problem...not firearm liberty. The people who want to disarm us are the same people responsible for the breakdown of the family. Their solution then is to bury their deeds, mute the cries, and put a pretty bow on an old hag and label it virtuous. It is a disgusting repeat of an eternal play begun in heavens rebellion. And Satan is its General.
