Ah so you will take correction on the date at least. The bill of rights, amendments 1-10, grant no powers to the federal government. In fact, they do nothing but place restrictions on the federal government. Art 1 Sec 8 deals with federal control of state militias ffs. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with granting the feds the power to regulate state militas, as they ALREADY had that power prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights. Recall, the Constitution passed in 1788. The Bill of Rights in 1791. It is nonsensical to grant themselves that power twice, leaving aside that's not the meaning of the actual sentence which comprises the 2nd amendment. We've been over this.
The operative clause reads ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That restriction pre 14th amendment applies only to the federal government. Post 14th amendment it applies to both state and federal governments.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ^^^^^^^ Creates a restriction on the federal government
We've also been over the realization that the original 2ND was passed as it was because there was a need for regulation of state militias. Read the history of the passage of the 2ND. You realize no judge can overturn an amendment? A judge can interpret an amendment differently, though. That's what SCOTUS has been doing with 2A for quite some time.
"The right of the people (state constitution declarations on arms) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (by the federal gov't and 2A)".
Yes, the restriction was on the federal gov't but not in the way you assume. The federal restriction was 2A was not to interfere with state constitution declarations on arms. 2A was never meant to be a universal arms right for Americans amendment...Er, 2A is a universal arms right for Americans amendment 'cause SCOTUS has incorrectly decreed it.
Gender dysphoria? Oh, the humanity! Do you even know what that means? It means "uneasiness" or "discomfort"... The stress they will likely face in basic training will produce thousands of time more "discomfort". How about if you try to compare that to the "uneasiness" of being sent to a war zone? Dear God, you are have clearly run out of arguments and are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Except, as already made clear to you with citation to a primary source, they already had the power to regulate state militias. A plenary power. See Art 1 Sec 8 which I quoted for you pages ago. Read the text of the second amendment. If you need a guide see Heller.
If you recall, for example, the Articles of Confederation had a provision for states to print money but that got so fouled up that The Constitution had to replace the articles (having to deal with Revolutionary War debt was another reason for The Constitution). There was a need to clarify or change The Constitution's regulation of state militias and 2A strove to make those changes...That's what amendments do. They change things.
Your interpretation is specious and demonstrably wrong. Every other time "the people" is used in the bill of rights it refers to an individual right. The 2a would not refer to itself, that's recursive. Additionally: You fail to understand what prefatory and operative clause pairs are and how they work to effect the sentence as a whole. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has exactly nothing to do with militias or militia service. Further: There was no need to grant a power to regulate state militias to the feds, they already have that power in 1788 there is no need to give it to them again in 1791. Still further: The text of the 2nd amendment is not a grant of power to ANYONE. It doesn't GRANT anything. Read it again.
There was no need to clarify or change because Art 1 Sec 8 is entirely ****ing clear. Your example with the Articles is a power that was terminated when the Constitution was ratified by the states. In Art 1 Sec 8. Where they also gave up militia control to the feds. READ.
Yes, training and service are stressful already which is why you don't send someone with a mental illness who wants to chop their **** off in to a ****ing warzone.
This has been addressed. You had no meaningful response to the argument put to you in this regard. Thus, it stands.
No! They didn't! That's my point. Scalia had the Linguist's Amicus Brief, and didn't use it when interpreting anything I have mentioned. He just made up nonsense! I mean, he used them in things we agree on. But not in his conclusion. He just "forgets" everything he himself said, and uses an arbitrary reasoning that he makes up on his own. For example, he agrees with what I explained in the thread "History 101:..." But then just doesn't use it.
Still haven't researched the history of the passage of 2A have you? Why is that? That's the whole premise of my argument...That the original passage of 2A has nothing to do with the meaning of 2A now.
That did not answer my question. At what point in history was that right taken away by that very same Bill of Rights?
The basis and facts are that J. Madison introduced the original language of 2A (it was supposed to be a direct copy of Virginia's gun rights legislation in their constitution), er, a universal arms right for Americans and the wording was debated and debated and massaged until finally 2A emerged from the Senate chambers.
