I don't know how you can take this to mean the right doesn't belong to the people outside of the ku Klux klan argument. Basically the klan argued the people aren't individuals but the collective so as to deny gun ownership to black people so they didn't get shot while lynching them. That's a rather communist view point and I don't think that was ever the intent of the amendment.
I’m not derailing your thread. I showed your thread was based on a false premise on page 3 of the thread. I don’t care WHY you introduced the 3rd A to the thread. But you DID. Since you DID, it’s illogical to try and avoid discussion of the 3rd A. If you don’t want something discussed or questioned in your thread, don’t introduce it into your thread.
Despite this academic analysis, the Supreme Court,in HELLER v US decided that the "militia" wording in the Second Amendment in no way affected an individual citizen's right to own and bear arms. Academic analyses are nice, but when it comes to defining and interpreting LAW... the Supreme Court has the final say.
No! As for the "intent", that's a different topic and is explained here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/
Correct. And an opinion to the contrary from someone fishing from a slow-moving boat doesn't matter..
That was a serious argument you're just unaware of History I suppose. It's not my fault that you don't know where your argument came from. I suggest you read up on it learn a few things.
It doesn't matter if the Second Amendment only has a single reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms. It still protects the right to keep and bear arms. And, since the right to keep and bear arms is so protected, people are free to avail themselves of that right for any reason they want. Conservative judges do not legislate from the bench. Only leftist judges do this.
It's the ONLY reason for which it was enacted. Which I demonstrated here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ BTW, what that means is addressed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ Until Trump, who refused transgender people the right to keep and bear arms to defend the security of a free state. Unless you believe that Justice Scalia was a "leftist", this thread, plus the others in this Forum ("English 102...", "History 101..." and "History 102") decisively prove otherwise.
I have replied to some posts in that thread, including some of yours. There are other posts in that thread that I mean to reply to, including more from you. I've not gotten around to it yet though. I do have a half-written reply to a post in that thread, but if I recall correctly it is a reply to someone else. But I'll get around to replying to the rest of your posts in that thread at some point. The problem with big-long-huge posts is, it takes forever to get my replies done and proofread them. It is true that Scalia did not enforce the entire Second Amendment. He ignored the first half and only enforced the second half. But considering that previous justices did not enforce any part of the Second Amendment at all, Scalia took a big step towards enforcing the Constitution as written.
Looking forward to it. There are no "parts" in the second Amendment. It's just one Amendment. Don't be confused by the grammatical use of clauses. They are inseparable. Which means that if you separate them, the meaning changes completely as to what was originally intended.
That is incorrect. There are two parts. The first part requires the government to always keep up a militia and use it to enforce the law. The second part requires the government to never infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Grammatical issues do not confuse me because I totally disregard grammar when interpreting the law. Separating them was the original intent.
The solution lies in living in Texas where we have declared ourselves a "sanctuary" for the second amendment just as so many states have declared themselves a "sanctuary" for illegal immigrants. We have "Constitutional Carry" here. Any LEGAL GUN OWNER can carry open or concealed without any permits or registration. Add no state income taxes. Add no China Virus mandates. Put it all together and what do you see? That FREEDOM REIGNS IN TEXAS!!!
There are no "parts". Not even the right-wing Supreme Court that obliterated History and Linguistics to justify a previously non-existent "right" to own weapons claims that. So you made that up and you're on your own. No wonder! Clearly you struggle to understand what grammar is.
The militia need to be well regulated should they be formed. The militia is made up of ordinary citizens so they keep guns. There aren't citizen owned armories all over the nation. The only reason to stop citizens from owning guns is to prevent them from forming a militia. So gun control violated both components.
Hiller vs US established that the "militia" part of the amendment had absolutely no effect on the individual right to own and bear arms. By the way...it was easy for citizens to form a militia when the major weapon was a flintlock. Much more difficult now when wars are waged with M1 tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, ATACMS, F-16's, B1 Bombers, Apache helicopters, etc. Times have changed.
I'm dead serious. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...aim-that-2nd-amendment-bans-cannon-ownership/
That is incorrect. There are two parts to the Second Amendment. The first part requires the government to always have a militia. The second part requires the government to never infringe the right to keep and bear arms. True. The Heller ruling pretends that the first part of the Second Amendment does not even exist. But the Heller ruling does enforce the second half of the Second Amendment. So it is a step forward compared to before, when no part of the Second Amendment was upheld. That is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms has been around for some 2600 years now. Not at all. My claims are all well grounded in law and legal history. I know what it is. But I also know that it has nothing to do with interpreting the law.
To everyone not not named Golem. The second amendment is pretty simple. You have a present participle or Independent clause and then the thrust of the sentence. The Test to see if a sentence is an independent Clause is if you remove it from the sentence. Does it still Grammatically make sense. "A well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall Not be infringed" If you removed the militia present participle does the following make a complete sentence? 'The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed' Clearly that is a complete sentence it has a Noun "people" and a verb "shall". that is literally al the grammar you need to know. But just in case you are not convinced, take an alternative sentence. "A well schooled electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" Now would you make the silly argument that only Well schooled Electorates can keep and read books? No you would not. The people pushing this Militia clause are disingenuous to the extreme. They care not about you being in a militia, in fact they probably hate all militia's to begin with. This is 100 percent about control. They want to control what you can and cant do with your rights. Its not enough for them that each state can set its own gun laws. They want to force it down your throat federally. But the simple fact is what's good in New York City is not necessarily good on a Ranch in Texas. Don't let them sell you a lie.
Not to mention that we are brimming with thousands of regulations of our second amendment liberty, which have no effect on the predators that liberalism continues to breed. Liberalism is the culprit. But they blame the gun because they refuse to acknowledge this and rule themselves. Even if all guns disappeared, they would still breed killers.
There are linguistic clauses. But so long as we agree that the clauses are inseparable we are in agreement. The "second half" (the main clause) as written is not independent. But enforcing the main clause as written refers to a military scenario, as I addressed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ This thread is about the "why". Ok. Then my point is made: it doesn't come from the 2nd A. What nonsense! Understanding written English has a lot to do with interpreting the law.
