No problem. Read the OP! Can you counter anything I demonstrate there? Possess and carry ready to use... WHAT? You left out the most important part . Fear not! You can read the answer to this fundamental question here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ Teaser (from that thread's OP): "Many confuse the right to keep and bear arms with an individual right to own weapons. Here I demonstrate... [don't miss the conclusion]"
I already have, in each thread you reference. Starting with the books example. Books. Carry ready to use. To bear means more than a military context and you're aware of that. You don't demonstrate any such thing, you're aware of that, and you can see my comments in that thread and every other spam thread on this topic you've made.
Your book example makes no sense. But, if it did, it would mean exactly the same thing. According to your statement, "If education were not necessary, then the right to 'keep and bear books' (which is meaningless in English) could be infringed" So you just reaffirmed my point. So that's the best you can do, huh! ZERO examples of any other use in any document, book, article... or any writing whatsoever at the time the 2nd A was written, prove otherwise. As the link I provided shows. But, of course, that's just reality. Nothing easier than denying reality by just... saying it, like you do... then by actually demonstrating the facts presented are wrong. So I guess that's that...
As explained: The book example makes sense, you're just trying to deflect because you have no cogent response. To be well regulated, IE in functioning order, the electorate must be educated. Hence their right to keep and bear books cannot be infringed upon. According to my statement. I did not, but its quaint that you think so. Keep telling yourself that, whatever you really need to have to get through the day friend.
I’m not going to read the entire forum posts over the past several years, requesting people do that is naive and foolish. I’ll address whatever point is in your post that I care to address. If you post stupidity such as the founders liked socialism etc, expect people to correct you. The 2A was to insure states could have a militia and not fall under the ban on a standing army. It had nothing to do with an individual right.
Correct! If the electorate must be educated, the right to have books cannot be infringed. If it were NOT necessary, it COULD be infringed. It's what your sentence means.
Of course not! That would be a waste of time. Just the OP. 100% agree! It's what that thread is about.
And now you're trying to make a prefatory clause alter or effect the operative. Its a nubbin, entirely superfluous. Its not necessary for it to be there for the sentence to mean the same, and its presence does not alter the right. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. < It means the same with or without the prefatory clause, because prefatory clauses don't change operative clauses. But we've been over and over this and you still don't understand.
You know I tell you this every time: Yes, I know that Gump. But argument is a sport for spectators not the parties.
Because that's what the prefatory clause (in linguistics called "absolute clause") DOES. That's my point. It does it in all my examples, and it does it in yours. YOU provided the example that reaffirms this. It wasn't me... If you DON'T want a prefatory clause that modifies the main clause, you don't include one. But if you choose to include one, it WILL. As you have now seen first hand, it does it in every single instance in the English language that has this structure with a stative verb. The ONLY way to interpret it differently is, like you do: to "make believe" as if the prefatory (absolute) clause wasn't there. But it IS there. And assuming that the framers were too stupid to understand this, is just plain silly.
Again by definition prefatory clauses do not act to alter, add to, take away from, or otherwise change the effect of the operative clause. You can literally remove it from the sentence and it changes nothing. What you want goes against the rules of grammar for the English language at the time the Constitution was written. No, I didn't. Yes, it was. Again: Prefatory clauses by definition do not act to alter, add to, take away from, or otherwise change the effect of the operative clause. If you want a dependent clause set, you put that in there instead of a prefatory and operative set. No one is assuming the framers were too stupid to understand what they were doing but you. They used a prefatory clause and operative clause: Therefore they intended to do that and they have the effects that prefatory clauses do on operative clauses IE they have no effect.
What the hell are you talking about? WHAT "definition"? Quote this "definition". YOUR example proves that it DOES. On the other hand, now it's clear you are just defending a dogma, and facts and rational arguments are of no interest to you. Thanks anyway. Here's another one who makes my case...
O surely: The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (199. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)) ^ That's DC v Heller and you can look up the various treatises and hornbooks cited for yourself. https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/08-10 Second Amendment.pdf ^ Here's a nice research paper on the subject with additional citations and references. As a threshold matter, the District’s argument rests on the mistaken belief that a prefatory clause or preamble can compel a result contrary to the command of the operative clause. However, basic rules of grammar make clear that the preamble is independent of this operative clause and does not control its command language.38 38 See Nelson Lund, D.C.’s Handgun Band and the Constitutional Right to Arms: One Hard Question?, 18 GEO. MASON U. CIV. RTS. L.J. 229, 237 (200 (“[Prefatory clauses] are grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence, and do not qualify any word in the operative clause to which they are appended.”). Professor Lund cites several grammar and rhetoric textbooks in support of this proposition. See id. at 237 n.25; see e.g., JOHN WILSON, THE ELEMENTS OF PUNCTUATION 4 (1857) (such clauses “are grammatically independent of the other portions of the sentence in which they occur”); VIRGINIA WADDY, ELEMENTS OF COMPOSITION AND RHETORIC 13 (1889) (“The absolute phrase is without grammatical dependence on any other word.”) I'm not defending a dogma, I'm stating a fact: the rules of grammar for the language the sentence examined was written in at the time it was written are as I have stated.
If any of your friends can rebut MY arguments, invite them to this forum and I will obliterate theirs by using YOUR example.
no leading constitutional scholar-including liberals such as Tribe, Van Alstyne, Amar and Levinson to conservatives such as Volokh, Crampton, and Cates support that claim
Thats because they have bought into incorporation, the welfare clause, commerce clause, Marbury, and all the other corruptions. And it doesn’t matter what they think, it’s what the Congress in 1791 said about it that matters.
How in the world did I miss this little gem! It's hilarious because of how naïve it is. If the structural grammar of English had changed in such a short period of time (250 years is just a "blip" in the evolution of languages), we'd be talking, not just of a different language, but of a different FAMILY of languages. Given that ALL Indo-European languages follow this same grammatical structure. It would render the whole U.S. Constitution completely useless because we would have to say it was in a totally different language. So, here is yet more proof that you are desperately looking for excuses to defend a dogma!
One can read that Madison's original draft was: "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." The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause. The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms.
So the Founding Fathers just decided to insert some completely superfluous clause about the militia into the amendment? Furthermore, they wanted to make it clear that people had a right to use guns for private purposes so they said that people had a right to serve as soldiers? ("Bear arms" commonly meant serve as a soldier at the time). That doesn't make sense at all.
This was explained in a different thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ I don't know what you mean by "weak dependent". But they are as "weak" or "strong" as any of the other examples. And the meaning in all of them is clear. So? I don't know what you mean by "limit". The absolute clause explains the main clause. That's all! It would not make sense because the original sentence doesn't make sense. So deriving anything from it would be absurd. Semantics is a very important part of grammar. And it requires that what we speak makes sense. Your example doesn't mean anything to any English speaker. Compare to the examples I provided. They ALL make sense in English. It's not a matter of throwing in words to defend a political position. This is a discussion about English grammar.
before anyone discusses what powers the federal government DOES NOT HAVE, one must understand what powers it was properly given where was the federal government given ANY proper power to restrict the arms of private citizens. RESTRICT being the key term-not what it might require citizens who may be called up to own.
Perhaps this will help: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/independent_and_dependent_clauses/index.html https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/commas/commas-part-7/ "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a complete sentence, and, therefore, independent. The militia clause is not. Were it to mean what you wanted, they would have been two dependent clauses made up so as to operate together "the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state." Once the security of the state is protected without that right, or it's nolonger a free state, then the right would not be important. Then why wasn't it used as an explanation? How about "Medical freedom being necessary to the equality of women; the right to seek medical care shall not be infringed." Well, hey, that doesn't really say that we can't regulate abortion, so why not? It's not an infringement to require that a woman get counseling before obtaining an abortion, right? Shouldn't a woman have to register her abortion? The Founders never intended it to be about killing babies! Yes, which is why I brought up the grammar. It's rather ironic that you think to school others on grammar, but you aren't aware of what a weak clause is.
Clearly, they weren't perfect. Look what the Federal government has done to money despite the Constitution being clear about its sole power being to coin money and regulate the value (denominations). Somehow, that got turned into "create" money and "force everyone to call our debt paper money." Then we can at least agree that there is no authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution to ban, regulate, or otherwise infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
