No you should take a legal grammar expert to court, like the interviewee in this article. The expert in said article: Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field. He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
Here are the rules of construction for the federal doctrine: There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.
Suppose, then, that the expressions defining the authority of the convention were irreconcilably at variance with each other; that a NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT could not possibly, in the judgment of the convention, be affected by ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION; which part of the definition ought to have been embraced, and which rejected? Which was the more important, which the less important part? Which the end; which the means? Let the most scrupulous expositors of delegated powers; let the most inveterate objectors against those exercised by the convention, answer these questions. Let them declare, whether it was of most importance to the happiness of the people of America, that the articles of Confederation should be disregarded, and an adequate government be provided, and the Union preserved; or that an adequate government should be omitted, and the articles of Confederation preserved. Let them declare, whether the preservation of these articles was the end, for securing which a reform of the government was to be introduced as the means; or whether the establishment of a government, adequate to the national happiness, was the end at which these articles themselves originally aimed, and to which they ought, as insufficient means, to have been sacrificed. You need to finish your cut and paste from Federalist 40. The argument that the lessor gives way to the greater importance is fundamentally an opinion piece.. What i presented were the rules of English grammar provided by an actual expert, acknowledged by his peers as one of the best. His opinion would be considered expert in the court of law. What your copy and pasting has nothing to do with the meaning of the second amendment at all.
I agree. WAKE-UP TIME IN EUROPE: TIME TO GET ARMED Sweden the latest to report soaring gun sales Ultimately you are responsible for your safety, and the safety of your loved ones. http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/wake-up-time-in-europe-time-to-get-armed/#ZqVlCxUiWa7V0UIq.99
Nothing but diversion? The rules of construction for the federal doctrine clearly render moot this artificial dilemma, manufactured by gun lovers without a clue or a Cause.
And any federal doctrine would be clearly rendered moot in the event they had to be overthrown. That's the oath every federal employee takes, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That would include any government that no longer abides by the Constitution.
None of which would apply to a tyrannical government that does not recognize the authority of the Constitution.
we have State Constitutions which claim the same thing for the several citizens in the several States.
First: I am pro gun. I own firearms myself (.45 ACP, .44 Magnum S & W, Winchester 30 x 30). Nevertheless, "gun possession" is not a human right. Human rights are those being obtained by the "act of being born". Human rights are valid everywhere, independent from place and time and also if having been written down in any constitution. Human rights is "what a naked man has in possession": dignity, life, health, absence of harm or injury. That all explains, why "gun possession" cannot be human right. People are not born with guns. Without someone having invented them, nobody would have one. Also the simple fact, that other states with different constitutions treat gun possession legally different, shows that different opinions exist, which is not the case for "human rights" (at least in theory). "Possessing guns" is part of civil liberties and freedoms which the state has only limited rights to impair. However: that is possible and every single law in the world impairs freedoms of anyone in the world.
The second amendment restricts the government from infringing on your "right to bear arms". The government is recognizing that you have a pre existing right. Where does this right that pre exists our government come from? In fact the BOR does nothing but restrict government from taking away your inalienable, natural rights that our founders recognized. The bill of rights grants nothing.
Since well regulated militias according to you fall under the purview and laws of Congress and the US government, why would they need a 2nd amendment? Does the US government need to protect gun ownership for militas already under their purview? Why do we have a Bill of Rights? Is the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to protect government entities? Does the 1st amendment only apply to well regulated militias too? Here, let me help you with your confusion: THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES Is the militia of the united states, regular or irregular, an individual? Why no it is not. The 2nd Amendment protects the individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
The supreme court has ruled otherwise. And as they have final say over the interpretation of the law of the united states, your position is an ignorance of law. District of Columbia v Heller
Dear, it is merely to codify the supremacy of well regulated militias of the United States regardless of all of the other ones; even the South figured that one out; what is your problem.
