THE most significant flaw in the militia-only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is...

Your opinion on the matter does not trump established law.
You asked for an explanation, and you got it, from someone, you admit, is better versed on the subject of constitutional law than you.

 

The exact same words or combinations of words often mean widely different things depending on differing contexts. That's how language works.

 

Agree to disagree I suppose.

 

But nowhere does "the people" refer to "an organ of the state" - except, as you would have us believe and cannot support save for your opinion, in the 2nd.

One must ask: Why does it matter? You already stated you do not believe any suggested restriction on the right to keep and bear arms violates the 2nd, and so regardless of the meaning of "people" the state may restrict the right in any of those way, including a complete prohibition.
.

 

You may choose to be wrong at your leisure.

 

I do not agree to anything.

I believe in an absolute Right to defend myself from harm.

Other folks do not and twist things to suit.

 

Then why didn't they say THAT, why did they say what they said unless they meant the FINAL version to be what they wanted?

You guys are always bringing up commentaries and letters to newspapers etc. Can you make your argument from the Constitution itself?

 

Only the people, not the Government, not the State, have Rights.
Rights are reserved to "The People"
When "The Militia" is called out, they operate under Government Power & Authority.

Hence;
"A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free State,
The Right of 'The People' to keep and bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

Since the citizen is Armed, the citizen can be called upon in a time of need to serve in the Militia.
At any time.
Very easy to understand.

 

Never mind there can be no right to keep and bear arms in service of or as a member of the militia, as there is no right to be part of the militia.

 

Did that. You didn't like it and responded with a remarkably powerful "nuh-UH".

 

Childishly weak and ineffectual.
Impotent.

 

I've made the argument before. You've seen it. Why do you keep forgetting it?

The leading phrase of the 2nd Amendment is a present participle used as an adjective. An adjective provides a description, it does not restrict. In the sentence "the blue dog barked" there is no restriction on the dog or what he did. The sentence could just as easily be "the dog barked". Any dog can bark. The fact that a blue dog barked doesn't restrict barking to only blue dogs.

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" gives a REASON for enumerating the right but it doesn't restrict the right in any way. The FF's included the present participle to make sure that militia's would always be available. But that is not a restriction on the right any more than the adjective "blue" restricts barking to only blue dogs.

The following clause is a restriction on the power of the federal government. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". It *is* a clause with a noun and verb and it allows for no loopholes. The battle cry from the left "but they are military weapons" is, in fact, meaningless in the face of the 2nd. Most of the regulations today on firearms are to make sure you are who you say you, that you don't have a criminal record, and that you have not been adjudicated mentally a danger to yourself or others.

Someday the restriction that fully auto weapons must be of a certain age in order to be purchased will be challenged and overturned as well. It's just a matter of time. The only reason it hasn't already been challenged is that not that many people are interested in a privately owned, fully auto firearm.

 

No, many people would LOVE to have a
Selectfire M-16A2,
Not enough to pay $ 30,000 plus and a $ 200 transfer Tax
For a firearm that should not exceed
$ 1,000
The ban on new manufacture civilian transferable post 1986 selectfire firearms is illegal.

It created an illegal Monopoly and is Unconstitutional as it creates an unwarranted economic sanction on State and Interstate commerce.

 

There's no reason an M4 should cost significantly more than an AR carbine.

 

Very true !!!!

 

Or why it should not be legal to build one.

As you can build any other firearms.

Get rid of barrel length regulations issues too.

As well as stock regulations, can't put a Rifle stock on a pistol etc....

 

Except that every documented word recorded regarding the Founders' intention proves you wrong; to say nothing of the most fundamental, grade-school analysis of the structure of the 2nd....

 

You keep ignoring "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and the whole point from BryanVA that if Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the complete power to decide how the militia is armed, then the any right of the militia to keep and bear arms isn't protected by the 2A at all.

How come these state constitutions, both prior and subsequent to the BOR, show the RKBA as an individual right if the 2A only protects the collective right?

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

 

Oh, you mean like how "well regulated" doesn't mean what gun banners like you think it does when used in the context of the 2nd Amendment??

We have; you just refuse to acknowledge those arguments. We point out why the use of certain terms IN THE CONTEXT of the Constitution mean what they do, but you don't want to hear that. So we cite the commentaries and statements of the Founders that demonstrate exactly what we mean, but you don't want to hear that either.

In short, you are desperate to hang onto your misguided worldview despite all the facts showing how misguided it actually is, and your entire counter argument is one long, overblown, excessively verbose gaggle of words that amount to someone sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALALAAAAAAAA!!!!"

 

sure-ignore the second amendment. Find me any language in the constitution that even hints at the federal government being given a power to restrict private citizens' firearms

 

"Can you make your argument from the Constitution itself?"

 

They didn’t.

Because the principle of securing the state as far as possible without the use of a standing army was so vitally important to them.

Consider for a moment how they summarized their plight at the brink of rebellion:

“But why should we enumerate out injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared that parliament can 'of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.' What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.” From the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms.

And the reply they met was:

“Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measure as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them.” Id.

You have to understand their experience. They were men who had lived their entire lives under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go not just unchecked—but which used the armed forces that were nominally supposed to serve and protect the people as the instrument of the enforcement of this arbitrary power. Their own government’s standing army became, in the words of Patrick Henry, the “engine of despotism” driven by a tyrant. They were forced onto the horns of this dilemma:

“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.” Id.

And having won their freedom from an oppressive government, they now had a chance to create a new government that would protect their liberties. They were not about to return to a life of living in constant fear of their own government. They were realists enough to know that times may require the raising of a standing army. But because of their shared experience the standing army was a much feared institution for them. The principle of relying upon the militia whenever possible—whose soldiers came from local communities—whose officers did not owe their positions to the favor of a potential federal tyrant—was important enough to them for inclusion within the Constitution—just as it was important enough to include within the state Constitutions.

"It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen." John DeWitt, The Anti-Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965)

 

Perhaps when dealing with street language. For example: “I’m not saying, I’m just saying…”

But when we deal with statutes or Constitutions we look at the entire body of the document, and unless specifically stated otherwise the same words or phrases are always construed to have the same meanings. This has been the rule of construction in nation since its founding.

When seeking to discern the meaning of a word in the Constitution, there is no better dictionary than the rest of the Constitution itself. Our precedents new and old have employed this structural method of interpretation to read the Constitution in the manner it was drafted and ratified — as a unified, coherent whole. See, e.g., NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. ___ 121281, ___-___ (2014) (slip op., at 19-20); id., at ___ (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 32); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4-14-415 (1819); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 328-330 (1816); Amar, Intratextualism, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 747 (1999).


The phrase “the right of the people” cannot have two different meanings across the 1st, 2nd. and 4th Amendments.

 

Aside from FF having qualms about any government having control over a standing army, a potential threat to the liberty of it’s citizens, there are the economic realities of the times and unwillingness to levy taxes to support a standing army. Also, if those that would be called to form a militia were unarmed, only to be armed by the government, then that government would have to maintain, stockpile, secure, and house the weapons to arm a militia, again, at the time, economically infeasable. Forming a militia from an armed body of citizens not only made more sense, but considering the fledgling country was still largely one bordering a huge frontier, a militia could be required for defense at any moment at any location along that frontier, so assembling a militia from local, armed, citizenry would have been the fastest, most economical, means available at the time and history is replete with examples of both the need and the occasion. Examined from the historic perspective, the wording of the 2A is perfectly logical and non contradictory, and protects a recognized individual right that could be leveraged for common defense when and where needed. The early US government was extremely reliant on patriotic volunteers for a myriad of needs... reading early news papers, letters and books of the time not only convey a sense of individual liberty, but a great patriotism toward the great experiment of a government that was beholden to it’s citizens... it was the ‘We’ government.

 

I already did.

My argument, based upon a reading of the Constitution, was the basis for the start of this thread....