Thanks for the superfluous English lesson, but I’d think I’ll continue listening to the Supreme Court’s take on this issuee. I have it on good authority they understand English syntax and context quire well, particularly as voiced in legal writing.
There were other reasons to bear arms when the Constitution was written. . However, they were not mentioned in the Constitution. They gave a reason, but not necessarily the only reason. It did not say that bearing arms was conditional. It was written as an absolute.
I'm not talking about the 2nd A making exceptions. I'm talking about it being irrelevant because a militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state.
It does not say a militia is required. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
They told you very very wrong. At least not Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision. He might be a gargantuan figure in the legal world. But he's an amateur in the world of linguistics. Lawyers are experts in law, not in linguistics. Linguists are experts in language, though not in law. Whether there is a legal right today to own guns or not... that's up to lawyers. But if there is one, it's not because the 2nd A SAYS that. Because it doesn't.
Ok, I understand. When I want to know what’s legal I’ll ask a lawyer/jurist. When I write the Great American Novel I’ll ask a linguist. Maybe a cunning one.
Even without the militia, arms would have been allowed at the time the Constitution was written for other reasons such as the Indians, wild animals and just hunting.. So obviously, the militia was not the only reason to bear arms. They further said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." They did not say only until those other reasons for bearing arms no longer existed. They put no limit on the right to bear arms at all.
Yes it does. It says that is because a well regulated militia is required for.... A well regulated militia is no longer required forthat purpose. So the Amendment is superfluous. It doesn't do anything... it doesn't change anything. It's just... there. Just like the 3rd A is there but.... so what...
Your argument would mean that the instant no militia was active, there would be no right to bear arms even though the other reasons for bearing arms would still exist. That makes no sense whatsoever.
This argument was destroyed the first time you tried to make it. Your position has no basis in law, or the rules of grammar.
lolers... you should apply to be a Supreme Court Justice to help them out with that Constitution thing.
Despite it being a verbose (literally) argument most people will not understand, I think your argument makes a compelling point. However, I think there are a few things you overlooked. First, the intended meaning of a "well regulated militia". You must not be familiar with the historical situation at that time. Individual states maintained their own militias, and they were the ones were regulated it. (However I do believe the term "regulated" also conveys the additional meaning of the state militias being subservient to the federal government, as per the Constitution; that is not really part of the point here) In addition, expressing a reason and then stating a right does not necessarily mean that right must be entirely contingent on the reason. You might argue what was the point of stating that reason then, but the point was probably about the individual state's right to maintain a militia, and how that related. It doesn't seem to make sense to most readers now, but would have made total sense to the people at that time. Remember during the Civil War people showed more loyalty to their state than the bigger federal (or confederated/union) government. This was all about trying to keep the new federal government away, an agreement to limit its rights. It was not originally intended to be a limitation on the rights of states. (You look up at the Amendment right above it, it specifically says it is about Congress)
I learned not long after kindergarten that just... saying... that something is not true, doesn't make it not true.
I am adequately familiar with the historical situation at the time. What you say is accurate, but I don't see how it contradicts my point. It makes no difference to my argument who regulates the militias. The "right" might still exist, but it becomes irrelevant once the reason to have that right becomes irrelevant. Well regulated militias serve no purpose now. If there is one, you STILL have a right to bear arms as part of it, but there aren't any. Not the right of the state to maintain a militia. The right of the people to form right of a militia, whether it's regulated by the state or by the federal government. But that's irrelevant today because well regulated militias don't exist. I agree that it made lots of sense at the time. But it's irrelevant today. I don't agree that the purpose of the 2nd A was to keep the federal government away. But that would be a completely different topic.
