LOL! You've proven only that you are incapable of deciphering a twenty seven word sentence. Good job!
I understand it just fine and I also understand what the term state implies and that is not as in a state of mind. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, What does that mean?
Just what Americans needs, an Australian Comedian telling us about gun control. In the first 60 seconds of Part 1 he makes a statement that is completely untrue. I didn't watch any more after that.
Australian comedian, that's an oxymoron. Didn't they pretty much loose the ability to possess firearms down there, yet the Muslims are still tearing the place up on a daily basis, and yet they want to preach to us how we should control firearms here. That's effed up.
I came to the conclusion long ago that Heller was wrong for various reasons: 1) Preambles were often used in 18 Century law to define the extent or scope of a right. 2) The latter part of the Second Amendment contains the idiom "bear arms" which usually had a military meaning in that era. The First United States Congress also used "keeping arms" in a military sense. 3) The First United States Congress made no mention of a RKBA for private purposes. When they discussed the topic their sole focus was the militia. 4) The majority of the states that addressed the issue in their own constitutions prior to the Bill of Rights being added to the US Constitution did not recognize a RKBA for non-militia purposes. It seems that the First United States Congress would have made it clear if they intended to deviate from the predominant interpretation of the right at that time. 5) The amendment says that the right belongs to the people. This is significant because the use of the term "the people" is often used when the people are acting together collectively. It often has a far less individualistic meaning that gun apologists think. The preamble to the Constitution begins with "We the People.... ", for example. Did it really mean each person? No, it meant the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention as representatives of their own states. The Second Amendment seems very oddly worded if it really does elevate "above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (per Heller). Perhaps, it could be argued that self defense is some peripheral aspect of the right but that claim from Heller is just nonsensical.
As Madison originally wrote it, it didn't have a preamble. As used in the Bill of Rights, were the rights of the People in the 1st and 4th amendment used collectively or individually?
Many misconceptions presented here. "The right of the people" is not a right of a collective, it is a natural right of individuals, "the people" without being prefaced by the term "the right" is collective as in forming a militia. Bear arms. This term has two parts bear which is to be able to present and arms which is any device used either defensively or as protection, none of which have anything to do with a militia
"an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) According to the 2nd amendment, a "free State" must first be secure. You started this thread. I assumed you knew what you are talking about.
Wrong or not, Heller is the legally binding precedent regarding the second amendment. Nothing short of a subsequent ruling by the united state supreme court will ever, under any circumstances, change such. And such a ruling is not going to come about for the foreseeable future. Therefore there is no further point in complaining about how it is incorrect, as it changes nothing. It is binding, it carries the weight of law, there is nothing to do but accept it and move onto the next line of argument.
In the context of the times, the historic precursors to the 2A of which many of the FF would have been well aware, the concerns of the authors the Constitution, the previous assertions of the influential colonial leaders at the time and even most colonialists themselves (in speech, letters and even from the minutes of the debate when the BOR was being crafted)...the language of the 2A would have been disambiguous. In addition, there is an overall consistency with not only the body of the Constitution, but the other rights protected by the BOR, of which, all protected individual rights not that of any collective or select subgroup. If the meaning was clear to most then, why would anyone assume a different phrasing would be needed to protect the intent from future interpretations from those intent on subverting the basic principles of the Constitution by convincing people the words and phrasing support their perversion of 2A to support a contrary narrative designed subordinate the individual to the collective? Scalia does a pretty good job in deconstructing the 2A’s text, addressing the prefactory statement, something most antis refuse to read and understand. Then too, most looking to suggest the 2A defines some collective interpretation take the word of collectivists and rarely argue from historic context or political theorists at the time or from earlier works of those like Brookstone or Harrington or previous law history. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr Those that swallow the distortion of the left regarding the 2A are on their way to seein the book that begins the with the line ““It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen” is a book of history.
In terms of the Second Amendment I have always assumed "free state" meant this: I believe the term in the Bill of Rights means our sovereign nation. Just my 2¢
Scalia failed to show that "bear arms" has an unambiguous non-military meaning. So it makes sense to look to the preamble for guidance in interpreting the phrase. The preamble says nothing about personal self defense. It does say something the importance of a well-regulated militia. Thus, Scalia's argument collapses like a house of cards.
“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; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” "Bear arms" clearly had a military meaning in the first draft. Adding the preamble made that even more clear. "People" in the Fourth Amendment is paired with the individualistic language of "persons". Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment does not have a preamble to limit the scope of the right.
It had both. It doesn't have to be unambiguous. If the Congress has complete power over the arms and organization of the militia, what does the Second Amendment protect?
