You are reading it wrong Golem. It's says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of The people shall not be infringed". What you are reading instead is "A well regulated people being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia shall not be infringed". But that's wrong. Every American that knows anything knows that rights belong to the individual and that these rights are equal. You don't gain rights just because you formed a mob.
the framers never intended the new government they were creating to have any ability to restrict the ability of citizens to own, use keep, carry, acquire or trade arms
when you understand that fact, the interpretation of the second becomes obvious. if the tenth amendment was actually followed (FDR took a steaming dump all over it) we wouldn't find the second amendment worthwhile UNTIL incorporation of the bill of rights with the 14th amendment
well to those of us who are both honest and educated, it establishes that the purpose of the second was to reiterate the fact that the federal government had no such power and the second was a redundant negative restriction upon a government that was without gun control powers
No they didn't!!!! If you can't argue against what the 2nd A DOES say, changing words is not going to help you
just stop the silliness-the second amendment was a negative restriction upon a new government that was never intended-nor given-any power to regulate the citizens' use, possession, acquisition, carrying etc of small arms
We've been through this Golem, you already know my response. No, you're wrong, the 2a takes away from the federal government any ability to regulate firearms ownership. The 14th amendment incorporates that same restriction against the states. See Bruen for an in-depth explanation.
This is what they wrote: And, as you pointed out in your OP, that could also be written as: It says right there that it’s necessary.
the government never had that power so nothing was taken away-but the end result is the same. gun banners understand the intent of the founders so they try to reverse re-engineer the second to pretend the intent of the founders was different
OK I tire of your bullshit claims of education and your specious signature about claimed research that you obviously have never done. I bet you don't have a 4.0 average from Yale in Political science nor a law degree. I doubt you have lectured law schools on the second amendment nor cited by top constitutional scholars such as Akhil Amar (Sterling professor of con law at Yale-. You want to play who is better educated on this subject-go for it-you are going to lose yet again.
It does no such thing. However, it's not what this thread is about. There are other threads where the purpose of the 2nd A is explained, if that's what you want to debate. Here are some that may be more adequate to whatever point you are trying to make. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ Please make sure to post to the one in which your claim is relevant.
It absolutely does. Its a prefatory and operative clause pairing, and the operative clause specifies that the government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of the people. "The people" when used everywhere else in the Constitution means the individual citizens at their own liberty. IE an individual rather than collective right, and an outright foreclosure of certain options the feds or states might otherwise take. I'm fine here thanks. Deflect with someone who will fall for it.
Yep! THAT's what they wrote. And if you think they meant anything different than what that phrase would have meant to any typical English speaker with an average education or about, as explained in the OP, go right ahead and make your case. But making up nonsense it DOESN'T say will not make you look good.
Yep! That's EXACTLY what it says. Nothing more.... nothing less. That's addressed here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Not precisely true. Without the 2a there are numerous powers the feds could use to **** around. Taxation, commerce etc. Basically the original NFA would be fine without the 2A, its a taxation and interstate commerce measure where they essentially have plenary power (but for direct limitations as with the 2A). They don't need a direct grant to touch guns when they can tax essentially anything that moves and regulate it as well. That's why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place. The states have an outright police power and so could basically 'muh health and safety' anything they could square with their own state constitutions pre 14th amendment. Its just that 1) the 2a was down from basically inception (a few years out ) and put in place by people who respected it and what it meant and weren't grabbers; and 2) the states all have RKBA in their constitutions so they have their own limitations at that time that the 14th amendment then fully forecloses. Which as you're aware didn't stop either set from violating the constitutional prohibitions on gun control.
WTF? YOU brought up "educated people". And then demonstrated that you're not. But neither you nor I are the topic of this thread. I can certainly understand why you insist on trying to change the subject that IS the topic of this thread, though. People usually do that when they have nothing to contribute to the REAL topic. I always recommend people who do that to stay away from topics they know very little about.
