And what I said is from the OP. Read it!!! And if you have anything to rebut, tell us what it is. Because it looks like every time you try to rebut something I say, you end up supporting it.
I have no idea what you mean by "alter the terms". If you are saying that the sentence would mean the same with or without the prefatory clause... WRONG.... It explains the purpose. It doesn't change, alter, modify, limit, ... none of that. It just explains the purpose. And if the purpose of something... ANYTHING... ceases to exist... well... then that "something" becomes irrelevant.
That's exactly what the definition says, and a rule of thumb is you can read the operative clause alone and still get the meaning the same. 1) Its not irrelevant, the purpose hasn't ceased to exist. 2) If you think its irrelevant, use Art V to amend it away.
That would be an interesting topic for you to open a thread about. I don't see the relevance of a well-regulated militia. Or why Congress would have a need for ".... calling forth the Militia" or "...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." But that's my opinion. And a different topic. But now you and I agree that that IS the topic. And that was the sole purpose of this thread. In the mean time, it IS true that they have the right to "bear arms" if they are ever "called forth" to defend the security of a free state. No mention of "hunting" though. I guess it didn't make sense to the framers that anybody would want to "bear arms" against a rabbit. But that would be a topic to be discussed here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
yes or no-the federal government was properly delegated the power to restrict what firearms private citizens can own
Delegated? More than that! They are REQUIRED to! It would be a dereliction of their constitutional duties if they didn't. Anyway... different topic. I'm just not interested in derailing this one. You can open your own thread, though.
Linguists brief in Heller trumps your OP. Yes, do read the Linguists brief in Heller and the books they cite. You haven't countered anything, so I have no need to rebut anything.
Again: Militia service has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Leaving aside the grammar already discussed (prefatory and operative clauses), every other time the constitution refers to the 'right of the people' it refers to an individual right not a collective right. What you describe, in addition to being wholly and completely grammatically incorrect, also makes no sense when read together with the rest of the document and applied to the rest of the document. What you describe is nonsensical in that to follow it produces an absurd result and hence is disregarded as such. Your opinion as stated is demonstrably logically absurd. To bear means to possess ready for use in public. We've been through this.
Yep! In fact. It's from Linguists' briefs (and there are... I think three) from where I get almost everything I say in this and the other thread titled "English 101...". Like the ones in the threads "History 101..." are from Historians' Amicus Briefs.
The one I'm quoting is part of the ruling in Heller. You can go argue with the sources they cite, treatises on grammar and language from the 1800s, if you like.
Warning: the answer might give you a heart attack. Since I don't want that kind of mess in this thread, you'll have to open one and MAYBE I'll have something to say. It depends on how you write the OP. I prefer that a thread that might potentially go over 100 pages long not start with too much nonsense. If it does, I'll pass.
I think this is the FOURTH time you talk about it, and you still fail to understand that that quote makes EXACTLY the case I make on the OP. Why would I argue with them? BTW, if I DIDN'T agree with them, what you say would be against forum rules which state that references, quotes, links... are intended to SUPPORT your case. Not to make your case for you. Obviously you wouldn't be able to make the case, because clearly you don't even understand what the case is they are making. But it is something you should keep in mind for the future.
OMG is that an idiotic response. WHERE DOES THAT DUTY COME FROM. This mental masturbatory thread is really hilarious
it doesn't exist. he is using the then senile Justice Stevens argument that he could not believe the founders wouldn't give the federal government gun control power so Senile Stevens assumed it existed. It does not
The Constitution, of course! Ever read the preamble? Of course not... Most right-wingers believe that the Constitution begins and ends with the 2nd A, and the rest is there to use only if it can be conveniently equivocated. Anyway... I say again: THIS thread is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A which makes it abundantly clear that the absolute clause explain WHY the main clause applies. You don't have any response. Which means my point is made... If you want to discuss anything else, see the other threads I sent links to, or open your own thread. Thanks for playing...
Absolutely not! You can look up the Preamble of the Constitution yourself. Read my sig! Finding the text of the Constitution is the LEAST you could do! Just google "preamble of the constitution of the united states" In fact, you should know it by heart.
just stop with your nonsense. I bet you do not have a law degree let alone the experience of teaching constitutional law. The garbage you spew is classic: do you really think you were the first militant gun banner who tries to re-write what the second amendment really means. Your Opinions are based on what you want the outcome to be, not on any valid factual basis. I have noted that the tenth amendment is the main and proper defense against federal gun control and the anti gun zealots have never ever dealt with the fact that there is no valid grant of gun control power to the federal government. If they correctly note that the FDR administration and courts IGNORED that fact, they then have to a admit that the holding of Heller and McDonald is equally valid and superior to the machinations of the corrupt new deal court
he just makes this up and hopes people who have no education in this area buy into the bovine droppings
Can't quote the text for where you get the power from, can't make an argument. Your quitting the field is noted.
I don't have a law degree, or taught constitutional law. However, I HAVE taught this linguistics lesson to some who do. The smarter ones incorporated it into their perspective. The dumber ones... well... I actually don't care what they do. Their students will eventually figure out that those teachers were not very smart.
you haven't taught anything to anyone. You have made up a dishonest claim about the second amendment in order to try to convince others that the second amendment does not prevent the gun confiscation and gun bans that you crave. Of course you don't have a law degree. No one who does would pretend to support the swill you have written
