Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

It's what the 2nd A says! What part are you struggling with? Other than the meaning of the word "says", that is.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
If you have a point to make, that's your burden - and you know you cannot meet that burden.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know are false?

 

In English, when the verb in a prefatory clause (to use Scalia's term) ends in -ing, there is a causal relation between it and the main clause when the verb is stative. In other words, the prefatory clause is a necessary CAUSE of the main clause. For example

"The ship having arrived, the passengers can embark"
The passenger cannot embark (main clause), if the ship hasn't arrive (prefatory clause)

"Standing on a chair, John can reach the ceiling"
John cannot reach the ceiling (main clause), unless he stands on a chair (prefatory clause)

"Books being necessary for the students to complete the project, the Library shall not close"
The Library can close (main clause), as soon as the books are not necessary for the students to complete the project (prefatory clause).

In all instances, the prefatory clause is the CAUSE of the main clause. Absent the cause, the effect does not follow.

Therefore...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the..., the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The right to keep and bear arms can be infringed (main clause), when the militia is not necessary to the security of a free state (prefatory clause)

Plain basic English 101

 

Still not a substitute for a meaningful response backed by a sound argument.

There are many more quotes on the subject from our founding fathers.

 

Here's a tip: before participating in a discussion... how about you try to understand what it's about?

If you don't... ask. It could spare you from wasting your time on irrelevant nonsense.

 

TOG took a solid position. (Thats why he doesn't need a disclaimer in his sig) On the second amendment, 100% of my post is relevant to your attempt to redefine what you disagree with. Now all you have to do is back up your position of outlawing private gun ownership with a meaningful response backed by a sound argument.

 

Prove this to be true.

If valid, then:
"A well-regulated breakfast, being necessary for a healthy diet, the right of the people to own and eat food shall not be infringed
Thus:
The right to own and eat food can be infringed when breakfast is not necessary to a healthy diet.


As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know are false?

 

If that were true, you should not have posted at all.

 

Nope! My attempt is to define what I disagree with. i.e., what the words on the 2nd A as written would have meant to any citizen with an average education in the late 18th Century.

Big strike out! Again! Better luck next time.

 

And your weak example was addressed with a long list of actual quotes removing any doubt as to the intention of the second amendment you attempted to redefine. Moving past your opposition to the constitution, you have yet to post a meaningful response backed by a sound argument.

 

Demonstrate this to be true.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?

 

Exactly! That's my point!

So the questions are:

"Is breakfast still necessary to a healthy diet?"
AND
"Is a well regulated militia still necessary to the security of a free state?"
AND
"Are books still necessary for the students to complete the project?"
... etc.

And that's what we need to start discussing. Because that's what the 2nd A says. Everything else is nonsense.

See? There is room for a reasonable dialogue! That's why it's worth it to take a long time to research the validity of my arguments. And you should do the same.

 

"The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
- John Adam

So how is crime irrelevant to the security of a free state?

How are "unorganized militias" well regulated? How are they relevant to the discussion of the role of the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment?

Keep grasping at straws.....

 

No...
You point was:

I challenged you to prove this to be true.
Your response indicates you know you cannot.
As this is the basis for your premise, you premise fails.
As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?

You know this statement is false.
As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know are false?

 

Absolutely. The 2A is meant to be self perpetuating. It’s the law that protects itself.

If you are pro law, and the militia is supportive of the law, why are you opposed to militias? That is not logical. LOL

Why don’t you tell me. Why does law provide for unorganized militia if they are irrelevant? The militia has been composed of all males of a certain age (17-45) since the 1792 Militia Acts. But every male 17-45 has never once been “well regulated” simultaneously since those acts. Why? And why does that matter.

I’m not the one grasping at straws. I’m the only one here who was even aware of the actual law (Militia Acts). I’m the only one with an understanding of what the militia is and has been throughput our history.

If there is no provision in any of the numerous Militia Acts to divest militia of their arms when they turn 46, or to prohibit 16 year olds or women from owning arms, the 2A does not just apply to active, well regulated militia—period. It’s as simple as that. That’s why the 2A was not repealed at the time of the passage of the 1792 Militia Acts, the spate of crime in the 1920’s, or at the time of any other militia act passage.

 

I am in favor of the National Guard which is helpful in enforcing the law. The Second Amendment is neutral on the issue of disarming people who are too old to serve in the militia. There is no distinction between organized and unorganized militias in the Militia Act of 1792. The "unorganized militia" is a 20th Century fabrication and it is not well-regulated. If you are pro Second Amendment (you probably aren't) then why would you be in favor of it?

 

You gave quotes containing opinions that were likely very relevant at the time they were spoken (or written). I am talking about the 2nd Amendment as was written in the Bill of Rights and approved by the States.

Completely different things. Pay attention!

 

This thread is fascinating...

 

That's my argument. Not my point. Learn the difference. My point is that the 2nd A refers to a military-type scenario. Specifically one in which a well regulated militia is necessary. And my argument (or part of it) was what you quoted above.

Not only HAVE I. By providing examples that you didn't even rebut. To further support my argument, you provided another example that SUPPORTS my argument.

There are many ways in which they could have written the 2nd A. They could have said "own firearms" instead of "bear arms", for example. They could have omitted the part about "a well regulated militia". They could have added "for personal defense" Which, BTW was, in fact, included in some state constitutions.

But they didn't. The framers were very much aware of English grammar as was properly used at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. They chose to write a prefatory clause that had a causal relationship with the main clause. They wrote the Amendment in the way that would be acceptable to the representatives of the majority of the states that would vote to approve it. Some might have preferred a more or a less restrictive wording. But this is what was approved.

That's right. A long time. But it looks like, with you, it was a waste of time. Because other than repeating again and again "it's false", and quoting my sig, now you have given up on trying to respond to my arguments in a coherent manner.

But the research that I did, in and of itself, is never a waste of time. I'm sure what I have researched will help when a more serious poster wants to discuss my arguments seriously, and not just repeat "that's false that's false..." again and again. like you do So thanks anyway.

 

The intent of a militia in 1792 was the same as today. The unorganized militia of today is not a 20th century fabrication. It’s a continuation of the militia provided for in both the 2A and the early militia acts. It’s a foundational block of state’s rights and provisions in the Constitution that ensure standing federal armies are not the only power capable of exerting force on internal or external threats. It’s one of the most important aspects of state’s rights and federalism.

The National Guard can not Constitutionally be the only militia. That is why when the Guard was put together under the Dick Act, there had to be specific provisions for the unorganized militia for states (and even county sheriffs in Texas) to draw from independent of federalized troops and guardsmen.

Again, there is NO evidence all members of the militia under the 1792 Acts were well regulated or that all members of the militia were ever all well regulated as you interpret the term.

The 2A and unorganized militia exist to ensure the federal government does not have a monopoly on physical violence and to ensure there is force necessary to repel invasion or internal insurrection if the standing army fails in that task.

What gun control advocates don’t understand is that the issue is much deeper than personal ownership of firearms. The relationship between ownership, state’s rights, and even the ability of the Union to exist depend on an armed populace from which a militia can be formed. The concern of citizens that the federal government could end up having complete monopoly on physical violence has not and will not cease to exist just because society has created a large criminal element.

Just out of curiosity, what have I posted that makes you think I don’t support the 2A?

 

You are incorrect. Your failed attempt to redefine the second amendment was easily refuted with quotes from our founding fathers. You already took the position of opposing our constitution, so now all you have to do is post a

Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

 

As the 2nd protects the right of the people, - that is, all "the people", not just those people in the militia - you have no rational basis for your statement.
Granny has the same right to keep and bear arms as the 20yr combat vet who just joined up with his SDF.

 

Either way, onus is on you to demonstrate your claim...

... to be true.
And you cannot.
As this is the basis for your premise, you premise fails, as do all of the claims you base on it.
As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?

 

You are fully aware of the fact Scalia said no such thing - as such, you know you statement is false.

As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why are you reduced to making statements you know are false?

 

I truly hope so, because I am not trying to define or re-define anything. I'm explaining what it would have meant in the mind of any moderately educated American of the era. Which is how linguists define "proper English"