The prefatory clause states the law is necessary to protect the state’s security. The context and records of the convention make clear this is in regard to the threat of federal power over state legislatures and open rebellion.
Explain, how is an individual right necessary by implication to achieve that purpose, when the actual language describing regimented, uniformed state militia or guard, adequately achieves the purpose by itself?
You said yourself the prefatory clause deliniates the subsequent clauses. Yet you read “the people” as being “every person” and not "the people [who are securing the state as militia regulars].
Even more curious again because the text says what right the militamen have: to keep and bear arms. You have to go to pretty recent writings to find examples of the words “bear arms” used to refer to a right of all individuals to have whatever guns they want.
More curious still because even if you’re right about the people being all people, you’re still reading out the parts about the militia and state security, as well as totally ignoring the context of the debate at the convention on this, which was in terms of the right of state legislatures and governors to call up militias to deal with rebellions that shall not be infringed by the federal power.
I accept that the revisionst version of history was adopted by our Supreme Court after holding for almost 300 years to the contrary. The pendulum will shift back on this, people are fed up burying their kids and when it happens to you or someone close to you, you’ll see.
You argument about public readiness/safety falls apart in front of the evidence that people are less safe with such ubiquity of guns. The text refers anyhow to state security, which, again you have to read as it was written–in reference to a state government’s sovereign right to perpetuate itself despite threats from rebellion or federalism.
I would concede that there is a general right of a militia age persons to keep arms. As they were then, serialized, registered, after training, not habitually openly carried, not stockpiled machine guns with thousands of rounds. You know, regimented like, with muskets.
I would even concede [unlike originalists and textualists] that the right of such persons to keep guns refers to common weapons of self defense such as shot guns and semi auto pistols with maybe a six round capacity; as the Breuen court speaks of this right to traditional weapons of personal defense.
But why not just can’t stop there? Every gun law has to be unconstitutional. Every weapon has to be available. Any restriction is an infringement. It’s bad faith, wasting time talking, and talking about language, when words don’t matter to conservative voters on this. One thing is sure, a bunch of tubbos with AR-15s aren’t going to wage a civil war. The very concept of individual states or even all the people resisting the modern federal power is moot. You don’t need to conpromise to be found guilty of possession of contraband and sent to prison; there are plenty of people sitting in prison for having a machine gun, didn’t want to compromise.
Explain, how is an individual right necessary by implication to achieve that purpose, when the actual language describing regimented, uniformed state militia or guard, adequately achieves the purpose by itself?
You are describing a standing army, not a militia. The Second Amendment does not mention a standing army.
You said yourself the prefatory clause deliniates the subsequent clauses. Yet you read “the people” as being “every person” and not "the people [who are securing the state as militia regulars].
“Regulars” are members of a standing army. Members of a militia would never be described as “regulars”.
Even more curious again because the text says what right the militamen have: to keep and bear arms. You have to go to pretty recent writings to find examples of the words “bear arms” used to refer to a right of all individuals to have whatever guns they want.
Wow, buddy. Are you even trying? Let’s reread the text of the Second Amendment: “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.”
Whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Ah yes, as it says in the actual amendment, it is the right of the people whose right shall not be infringed. Not the right of members of the militia.
I would concede that there is a general right of a militia age persons to keep arms. As they were then, serialized, registered, after training, not habitually openly carried, not stockpiled machine guns with thousands of rounds. You know, regimented like, with muskets.
Please cite your sources. Guns were usually owned by individuals and not serialized in the late 18th century. And please, the whole “it only applies to weapons available at the time” fallacy is ridiculous because that would mean that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to electronic communication systems.
I would even concede [unlike originalists and textualists] that the right of such persons to keep guns refers to common weapons of self defense such as shot guns and semi auto pistols with maybe a six round capacity; as the Breuen court speaks of this right to traditional weapons of personal defense.
Judge Roger Benitez has repeatedly explained that the reason police officers use weapons with larger magazine capacities is the same reason why everyone should be able to use guns with larger magazine capacities. It’s irrelevant anyway, because the Second Amendment doesn’t give any leeway to such infringements.
Every gun law has to be unconstitutional. Every weapon has to be available. Any restriction is an infringement.
The only three sentences you’ve said that have any truth and logic to them. I’ll agree with you on those three sentences.
All gun control laws are unconstitutional and illegal and should be repealed.
The prefatory clause states the law is necessary to protect the state’s security. The context and records of the convention make clear this is in regard to the threat of federal power over state legislatures and open rebellion.
Explain, how is an individual right necessary by implication to achieve that purpose, when the actual language describing regimented, uniformed state militia or guard, adequately achieves the purpose by itself?
You said yourself the prefatory clause deliniates the subsequent clauses. Yet you read “the people” as being “every person” and not "the people [who are securing the state as militia regulars].
Even more curious again because the text says what right the militamen have: to keep and bear arms. You have to go to pretty recent writings to find examples of the words “bear arms” used to refer to a right of all individuals to have whatever guns they want.
More curious still because even if you’re right about the people being all people, you’re still reading out the parts about the militia and state security, as well as totally ignoring the context of the debate at the convention on this, which was in terms of the right of state legislatures and governors to call up militias to deal with rebellions that shall not be infringed by the federal power.
I accept that the revisionst version of history was adopted by our Supreme Court after holding for almost 300 years to the contrary. The pendulum will shift back on this, people are fed up burying their kids and when it happens to you or someone close to you, you’ll see.
You argument about public readiness/safety falls apart in front of the evidence that people are less safe with such ubiquity of guns. The text refers anyhow to state security, which, again you have to read as it was written–in reference to a state government’s sovereign right to perpetuate itself despite threats from rebellion or federalism.
I would concede that there is a general right of a militia age persons to keep arms. As they were then, serialized, registered, after training, not habitually openly carried, not stockpiled machine guns with thousands of rounds. You know, regimented like, with muskets.
I would even concede [unlike originalists and textualists] that the right of such persons to keep guns refers to common weapons of self defense such as shot guns and semi auto pistols with maybe a six round capacity; as the Breuen court speaks of this right to traditional weapons of personal defense.
But why not just can’t stop there? Every gun law has to be unconstitutional. Every weapon has to be available. Any restriction is an infringement. It’s bad faith, wasting time talking, and talking about language, when words don’t matter to conservative voters on this. One thing is sure, a bunch of tubbos with AR-15s aren’t going to wage a civil war. The very concept of individual states or even all the people resisting the modern federal power is moot. You don’t need to conpromise to be found guilty of possession of contraband and sent to prison; there are plenty of people sitting in prison for having a machine gun, didn’t want to compromise.
You really need to study history some more.
You are describing a standing army, not a militia. The Second Amendment does not mention a standing army.
“Regulars” are members of a standing army. Members of a militia would never be described as “regulars”.
Wow, buddy. Are you even trying? Let’s reread the text of the Second Amendment: “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.”
Whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Ah yes, as it says in the actual amendment, it is the right of the people whose right shall not be infringed. Not the right of members of the militia.
Please cite your sources. Guns were usually owned by individuals and not serialized in the late 18th century. And please, the whole “it only applies to weapons available at the time” fallacy is ridiculous because that would mean that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to electronic communication systems.
Judge Roger Benitez has repeatedly explained that the reason police officers use weapons with larger magazine capacities is the same reason why everyone should be able to use guns with larger magazine capacities. It’s irrelevant anyway, because the Second Amendment doesn’t give any leeway to such infringements.
The only three sentences you’ve said that have any truth and logic to them. I’ll agree with you on those three sentences.
All gun control laws are unconstitutional and illegal and should be repealed.
Removed by mod