No. That one was only about the idiom "keep and bear arms". This one is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A. But that's ok. I corrected it by moving your comment here. Forum rules state that quotes, sources, references, links,... should be used to support your case. NOT to make your case for you. This is why you will find arguments in these threads (four threads), in which I explain the arguments by which philologists, linguists and historians demonstrated that Scalia, though he may be a great legal mind (I have no parameter with which to judge either way), would have failed miserably any basic history or linguistics class dealing with the 2nd A However, your post tells me that all your questions were answered. So I guess that's that...
Again with the cutting of the quotes. Again with the non-sequiters and deflection. I've made the argument, you'd see it if you'd stop cutting the quotes and pretending what you cut doesn't exist. Here's the exercise you keep avoiding: Let's try an exercise: A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharp dressed man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed. A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. Identify who has the right described in each sentence. Describe what restrictions may be placed upon that right. State what effect the sections behind the first two commas have on the remainder of the sentence.
Oh goody! Let's! I have no problem whatsoever with the right to bear arms. Even though Trump would appear to have refused that right to transgender people when he was President and would not allow them to serve in the military. Which is where you would legally "bear arms" today. My problem is with some made-up "right" to own weapons that Scalia artificially used the 2nd A to justify. However, that's a DIFFERENT topic. In respect to this topic. Let's take your first example: "A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharp dressed man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed." In other words: "Because a well tailored suit is necessary to a sharp dressed man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing shall not be infringed" Which means that if a well-tailored suit is no longer necessary, the right of the people CAN be infringed. Even though you can't kill anybody with a well-tailored suit.... so there would be no need to. Exactly the same for the second example. I included plenty of examples in the OP. You can also apply the same to all.
That's not how prefatory and operative clause pairings work. The no longer necessary bit is something you insert. There is no conditional here. The right described in the operative clause is not effected by the description in the prefatory clause. Prefatory clauses have no operation to add to, take away from, or otherwise modify an operative clause. In point of fact you can put your hand over the prefatory clause and get the same meaning.
Of course it's affected. And YOUR examples demonstrate it. Why have a militia if it weren't necessary to the security of a free state? Or why books, if they weren't necessary to keep the population educated? YOUR examples prove that the absolute clause (or "prefatory", as you call it) explains the reason for the main clause (which you refer to as "operative"). Absent that reason.... well.... That's a different topic. There is not a single linguist or philologist in existence that agrees with that nonsense made up a guy who has NO training in linguistics like Scalia. And the reason is not even obscure. YOUR examples, as well as all examples in English language of similar syntactic structures demonstrate that he absolute clause explains the REASON for the main clause. Every single time (when there is a stative verb that ends in "-ing"). The funny thing about all this is that Scalia's examples DEMONSTRATE this.
who are the linguists you claim matter. The second amendment is a legal issue and guess what-LEGAL SCHOLARS are the ones who matter. You want to focus on linguistics because your argument fails as a legal argument. It fails because the standard model is that the second amendment protects individual rights and because the COURT of highest jurisdiction has held it has. And Linguists do not agree with your mutated version of the second amendment. The first part of the amendment in no way limits the negative restriction on a federal government that was never given any gun control powers in the first place.
Linguists don't actually matter in respect to understanding the examples. ANY English speaker understands that the examples (the ones I provided and the ones the poster I responded to submitted) demonstrate demonstrate the causal relation. You are encouraged to try it! Think of ANY phrase in English with this structure, and What linguists contribute to the discussion is that they explain that this structure is UNIVERSAL, and that it always means the same as explained on the OP. And, BTW (fun fact), linguists have found that the structure is also found in EVERY language in existence. So it's not even something that changes or "evolves" with time. It appears to be what Chomsky described as an "innate" linguistic structure. But the point is that ALL linguists and philologists agree about the structure. There is no exception. As for this thread, this is about linguistics. I should know: I opened the thread. No interest, as far as this thread goes, on legal arguments. And if you read Heller, you will notice that Scalia's lack of understanding of linguistics is unquestionable. Before Heller was decided, the most prominent linguists in the country sent an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court, which Scalia simply ignored. But, just like turning to a linguist or philologist for legal advice is absurd, relying on an attorney to lecture us on Grammar is complete nonsense. You are hereby challenged to quote them!
as usual you demand we refute your unsupported assertions. We have cited plenty of people whose opinions on legal matters are at the top of the heap when it comes to this issue. You utter your opinion and demand that we prove it is wrong. We cite controlling court opinions, scholarly articles that are PERSUASIVE to the courts and the common sense "the right of the people" (not the militia) and the environment at the time the constitution was adopted, and you pretend that none of that matters.
It's YOUR assertion. Not mine. But, of course, nobody here expected you to quote something that doesn't exist. But the fact that you didn't does prove my point. BTW, almost forgot, it looked like you now want to shift to HISTORICAL arguments. Since you have been so helpful in demonstrating my linguistic aspects, I would love for you to do the same with my arguments based on the Historians' point of view. 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/
every relevant legal authority denies your claim. I have no duty to further support my assertion and you have completely failed to prove your silly claim that since the second amendment is obsolete, the right somehow disappears. All you are doing now is engaging in contrarian nonsense. You have already lost this argument
To demonstrate that no individual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals - despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology. As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear. Such debate as the amendment received is sparse and inconclusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposition that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes.38 this comes from a U of Michigan Law review (one of the top law schools in the world) written by Don Kates BEFORE Heller and McDonald https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=mlr
Legal authorities are irrelevant to this thread. Your statement, which you are now understandably running away from was YOU: "And Linguists do not agree with your mutated version of the second amendment." And you certainly have no duty whatsoever to support it...unless you expect it to be taken seriously.
The right is not conditioned upon explanation. It doesn't disappear because you subjectively think its no longer necessary. That's not how rights work. Additionally: This right is not created by the 2a. The text of the operative clause clearly indicates something that pre-exists and is merely being recognized explicitly. See Cruickshank for an in-depth explanation. Since its not created by the 2a, the text of the 2a cannot make the right conditional. Furthermore: By definition prefatory clauses have no effect on the operative clause. This confusion you pretend to face is why the practice has fallen out of use in the modern era. The fact we don't turn a phrase that way anymore doesn't change the text of the 2a or its meaning when written, or the fact that it recognizes an underlying right rather than creates one. False: Scalia quoted grammar texts contemporaneous with the founding for the rules already stated. Its not an absolute clause. Its a prefatory and operative clause pairing.
There is no such thing as "authorities" in science. There are only experts. But the only "experts" this thread requires is any native English speaker. Linguists explain WHY the examples we have provided all show a causal relation between the absolute clause and the main clause. But any average English speaker will understand the relation intuitively.
I didn't say it did. I'm saying that's what the sentences, as written, mean. The "right" certainly doesn't disappear. This just makes the 2nd A as obsolete as the 3rd A. That is correct. But irrelevant to this thread. Oh, dear God! It's just semantics. Linguists call them "absolute clause" and "main clause". But you can call them "prefatory clause" and "operative clause" if you want. Makes absolutely no difference.
If you're saying you can infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized in the 2nd amendment, that's exactly what you're saying. Let's assume 3a is obsolete (its not but lets assume): We still aren't going to suddenly allow the feds to quarter troops in homes unless you happen to amend out the 3a. You don't get to say "obsolete" and ignore it. That's exactly the opposite of how the constitution works. This is not 'Nam Smokey, this is Constitutional Law. There are rules. A prefatory clause by definition has no effect on the operative clause. With such a pairing you can literally omit the prefatory clause and have the same effect. By definition. You're saying the 'absolute clause' effects the 'main' clause. By definition that would mean they are not interchangeable terms, because a prefatory clause has no effect on the operative clause. Makes quite a bit of difference.
why should pseudo science matter here? because you lose on legal authorities? because you lose on the environment in which the constitution was created? because you cannot address Kates' seminal argument-that even if the PURPOSE was to arm a militia, there is no evidence that the founders eschewed an individual right
The 3rd A is obsolete because the feds don't NEED to quarter in anybody's home. Just like a militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. If we wanted to remove them, we would need a constitutional amendment. But, why bother? Please quote this "definition" you speak of from an authoritative source. But, of course, even if such definition existed (which it doesn't) it would be easily debunked by ANY English speaker by showing either the examples I provided on the OP, or the examples YOU provided in which it's clear that the prefatory clause (as you call it) ALWAYS.... in every single sentence (with the structure stated on the OP) there is a casual relation. In other words, the prefatory clause is the necessary cause of the main clause. You will find NO unbiased English speaker that doesn't understand that in the phrase you gave when interpreted as written, "a well educated electorate" is the cause for "the right of the people to keep and read books". Whether there are other reasons for not infringing the right of the people to keep and read books is a different matter. If there are, they're just not contemplated in the amendment.
And if they attempted to do so in the present day, the 3a would stop them whether they needed to or not. The brits didn't NEED to, they did so as a means of social control. The same way they didn't NEED open warrants but used them as a terror tactic. If you wanted to you could get an amendment passed? How do you figure that? Do you not understand how many states have to agree? Have you not looked at a map showing the ideologic spread? You don't have the numbers. Because you want to institute gun control which is unconstitutional. See 2a. Yeah, you can use the same source quoted by scalia in heller. There is no causal relation in any of the sentences in the exercise. I'm not even going to address your various no true scotsman fallacies.
Pseudo-science doesn't matter anyway. Except for the fact that it illustrates that you have no clue what science is. The environment in which the constitution was created is discussed in the "History..." threads I provided above. Read with caution: they will rock everything you thought you knew to the core.
have you ever seen him post anything that demonstrates that the founders did not see the RKBA as an individual right?
He posts his argument, refuses to prove his claims to be true, and then demands people prove him wrong. With that level of willful intellectual dishonesty, there's not much reason to pay attention to what he says So... no.
I don't want to. I couldn't care less. And it's irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is your statement YOU: "A prefatory clause by definition has no effect on the operative clause" Did you "forget" to include this "definition" you speak of? Quote and link? Don't bother answering, if you made it up.
