I think two of the places treated me to a pretty decent lunch-the other one gave me a polo shirt. So tell us-given your peculiar views on the second are not in concert with any major league legal scholar-why should we care what your view is?
Which would have meant absolutely nothing in the minds of educated people of the era. If they wanted to give an individual right to carry weapons outside of a military scenario, they would not have mentioned a militia at all, and they would have said "the right of the people to carry weapons shall not be infringed" Any person of the era who read the Constitution perfectly understood the term "bear arms" to mean that it referred to a military. Especially when preceded by the statement about the militia. So your argument is ridiculous. It implies that the founders wanted to confuse people who read the Constitution by incorrectly using normal terms used in every day life. Why would they do that? Antonin Scalia, for one. Do you not consider him a legal scholar? I do agree that he was a linguistics pseudo-expert, though. You have not answered a single one of my questions. I have began to doubt you even read them. Please respond to this one. Do you actually believe that the founders wrote the Constitution to be understood only by legal scholars? And purposefully in a way that everybody else would be confused? if so... why would they do that?
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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;
and that has zero relevance to what citizens may own or use or carry when they are not actively serving we all agree that those in active service, must appear where told to do so and wear whatever uniform the congress prescribes. But that does not mean congress can tell every man who may be drafted, what he can wear or where he can travel, before he is inducted or after his term of service is over
it is about the power to organize the militia of the People. It is express and our Second Article of Amendment must be read literally not imply any interpretation.
in other words you are just making stuff up. I already knew this but since this is only the 4035th time you have posted this same claim, there might be a new reader who hasn't encountered it
And yet they gave congress no legislative power to prevent the people of the several states from carrying weapons.
The thing about linguistics, is that you don't have to just .... say.... things as if they were "facts". Like you do here. You can prove or disprove them with examples. The -ing ending in "being" indicates that the first clause is integral part of the sentence. As in "The ship having arrived, we all embarked" "Standing on a chair, John can reach the the ceiling" "The Sun being up, it became warm all over" These are absolute clauses. The absolute clause modifies the main clause. To identify when a clause is absolute, there is a test. We try to deny the main clause. And if the result sounds nonsensical or foolish to an average listener, then it's an absolute clause. For example. It sounds perfectly fine if somebody were to say "Leafs flying all around them, the children ran through the woods; but the fact that leafs were flying all around them was not why the children ran through the woods" Therefore, this is not an absolute clause. But it wouldn't sound right if somebody said "The Sun being up, it became warm all over; but the reason it was warm all over was not that the Sun was up". So we know this is an absolute clause. The following phrase would also sound foolish to any average English speaker both at the time, and now: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” For this reason, there is consensus among linguists that the first clause is an absolute clause, and not just prefatory.
But the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is NOT the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
lol. that is the right wing and you are not right at this time. our Constitution is Express not subject to right wing Interpretation.
only well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union. those not well regulated militia are subject to the traditional police power of the State.
Yes, the security of a free State is the express reason why well regulated militia are necessary, and they may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Again, prefatory clauses do not modify operative clauses ergo the militia bit in the 2a is superfluous. The operative clause holds sway: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
there is no need to modify anything. the unorganized militia is subject to the traditional police power of a State when not well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State. There are no, Individuals of the People recognized in our Second Article of Amendment.
See 4th amendment for another use of "the right of the people" which is also an individual right. You're wrong.
That is only about recourse from the traditional police power of the State not the security of a free State.
Sure. Go and tell that to a nation that had barely an army and was struggling to survive while our forefathers feared the day the Red Coats came back in to hang them on a noose. In any case, that's not the point. The point is that the sentence would not sound right to a typical English speaker..
its an example of the phrase "the right of the people" referring to an individual right, rather than a collective right. Hence the 2a contains individual rights language in its operative clause. You are wrong.
I would agree with you, if our Founding Fathers had not made sure there could be no ambiguity through the use of the terms involved.
I agree that there is no ambiguity, however it is because the operative clause uses individual rights language.
