You quote me saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... And you say that's "fake news". Need I say more? BTW, even though I know Heller very well (I might open a thread about it some day), this thread is not about Heller. If you have an argument to make, YOU make it. Focus!
That is correct. But that's a different topic. which is discussed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ I have no idea what you mean by "weak". It's DEPENDENT... Period! Just like the other examples. If the library closed, then the students wouldn't be able to complete their project. If the ship hadn't docked, then the passengers wouldn't be able to embark. First of all, the sentence doesn't even make sense. A roadway is not a means of transportation. A car is, a horse, a bicycle... but not a roadway. A roadway is a mode of transportation. Try again. But use an example that would make sense to an average English speaker.
Fake News. That quote is not yours, it's from the Second Amendment, you simply included in your post and it's easily understood. I made several points which you failed to address: District of Columbia v. Heller, recognized as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. It did not create that right. McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court recognized that this right applied against the states. Our government does not CREATE rights, our rights are inherent and WE created our government. Your claims are a form of idolatry where you create an entity and then claim it has powers independent of yourself. It doesn't. Wrenn v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit struck down a requirement that recognized that gun owners are not required to show “good reason” for a concealed carry permit. Just last week, D.C. lost another major ruling under the Second Amendment where they pretended that they could make laws that violate citizens rights at will that would remain in force until the Court struck them down. They are now exposed to hundreds of millions in damages for their unconstitutional rights violating scheme. The Court will speak again on the issue this term: N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) claims that a concealed-carry handgun license requires a showing of “proper cause.” "Lower courts upheld the law but there are ample constitutional concerns over the vague New York standard like showing that you are “of good moral character.”" https://jonathanturley.org/2021/10/...n-guns-abortions-and-free-speech/#more-179133 6 points standing in majestic splendor that you ran from like they were an incoming Jeffrey Toobin Zoom call.
And you called it "fake news". So that is a definite indicator about how seriously we should take your posts. BTW, I am ONLY talking about the 2nd A. Not about any court cases.
Your claims about 2A are fake news, In our system the Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. You are free to make things up and I'm free to point out that your claims are not well founded.
I'll get there eventually. But I'm thinking of doing your English 102 thread next. And as you may have noticed, I progress through threads somewhat slowly. But that's OK I hope. As long as I am eventually able to reply, the thread should still flow along. I rebut and reject it. They didn't. There was no need for such communication. The right of free people to keep and bear arms had already been around for thousands of years. Everyone already knew what right was being protected.
But.... is it a clause? Golem, Always a pleasure to read your perspective on things. I seldom agree with what you say, but always a pleasure! Example 5 "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." or "Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high school diploma?" Check out the short article in the link: https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm in which USC Journalism Professor Roy Copperud gives an analysis of the Second Amendment. The Professor gives an interesting analysis wouldn't you agree? Rich
I don't know how you can call his post a pleasure when he constantly deflects relevant points. Even when absolutely pointed out how wrong he is about whatever narrowly pointed view hes taking that is completely contradicted by outside evidence he continually refuses to abandon his false premise.
I don't know what "restriction" you are talking about. The absolute (prefatory) clause is not a "who". It's a WHY. There is no restriction. And, as I have said many times in this thread, there might be other reasons for a "right to bear arms". But the only one protected by the 2nd A is the well regulated militia. This doesn't invalidate any other reasons. They are simply not addressed. So the question becomes if a well regulated militia is STILL necessary. Because, if it isn't, that would mean that the 2nd A is as irrelevant as the 3rd A. Sorry, but I have been "burnt" too often with articles that turn out not to be relevant. It's not my intention to belittle your reference, but if there is some point there that you agree with, I would prefer that you go ahead and make that point. This is why forum rules state that links, references, quotes.. should be intended to support your point. But not to make your point for you.
And that entire argument is irrelevant because its already been addressed by the supreme court twice in Heller and McDonald. The entire thrust of the second amendment is a limiting principle on the federal governments ability to restrict firearms for citizens. Its the entire purpose of the bill of rights. Your argument is silly because you arguing that because you don't see a need for a militia, there is no need for a second amendment. The second amendments entire existence is built on a limiting principles for the federal government, your argument would cede the right to firearms back to the federal government. That by it self violates the second amendment. You have been show multiple times in your many threads how baseless your line of logic is and yet you continue to persist in your narrow personal view. Hopefully their are not many people who view the world as you do through your myopic lens. I am going to guess you have never had to stack up on a door, Put your live in the hands of others or have them put their lives in your hands. Because if you had you would see how utterly asinine your position is. Your arguments don't stand up to any Historical context Your arguments don't stand up to any Legal context Your arguments don't stand up to any sort of perfunctory understanding of the English language Your arguments fail even the most basic logic test or rational thinking.
This thread is about the 2nd A as written and approved by the states. Not about gun legislation passed by the Supreme Court. As for the historical background. That is addressed in other threads. 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/
You actually believe the 3rd A is relevant today? Anyway... the 3rd A is not the topic. I see you have no further comment on the real topic.
Again: very naïve to believe that because SCOTUS is not supposed to pass legislation, they don't. They do. They have done it when there is a right wing majority... they have done it when there was a left-wing (or center) majority. But again, off topic. If you want to discuss other topics, open your own thread.
You brought up the 3rd A in your thread to support your argument. It is now part of the topic. If you don’t want an issue discussed, don’t introduce it to the discussion.
That's one way of looking at it. But the Constitution is the voice of our founders, exhorting the government as to its limitations, for the purpose of preserving the liberty of the people. To say then that our military is the militia so as to disarm the people, is to violate the very purpose and spirit of the Constitution and the second amendment, empowering government and reducing the liberty of the people in one fell swoop. Preserving the second amendment keeps the spirit of constitutional liberty alive.
To exemplify my argument. Not the topic! Why do you always resort to inanities to try to derail my threads?
Aren't you saying that the military is the militia, and therefore there is no need for an armed populace? In so doing, it would give the peoples right and power to the government, which is counter to the purpose and spirit of the constitutional intent of a managed government and a free people. And thus turn reason upside down with a managed people and free government.
