Reply
Wastelander
Registered: 10/09/2013
Offline
573 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

KIoey wrote:

Keep in mind a well-regulated militia in 1791 only had muskets and disease covered blankets...Nah, that route's boring.

 

The open interpretation through the preface (which you can choose to ignore if you want, English is English regardless of your opinion) allows the government to restrict gun ownership.

The operative clause simply directs at the course of action to fulfill the prefatory clause, not nullify it. In other words, to not infringe on the state's rights to have a well-regulated [in 21st century English: working] militia is to not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

Since we have State Defense Forces, I guess that the 2nd Amendment is working fine.

Edit: Inflammatory comment removed

 

-Stage_Coach


Overlooking your obvious insecurities, as evidenced by the way you try to make your comments insulting, I will give you a response.

 

Keep in mind in 1791 the government did not have tanks, assault rifles, jet fighters, and more.  I know you didn't want to go that route so I will stop there but I'm ready to debate this if you want.

 

The language of the 2nd ammendment does not grant government power over our liberty to bear arms.  If it does please explain why you believe so.   I believe the 2nd ammenmdnet states that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and in the historical context of the times those arms would be weaponry comparable to whatever the government possesses, as described in the first post.

 

Also you must keep it in the context of 16th century english as that was in practice when the 2nd ammendment was written.

 


to fix kloey's meanness:

 

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.

 

Prefatory Clause

Operative Clause

 

both types of clauses were around well into the 16th century, so there's not a timeline issue there (1791 is the 18th century, btw). a prefatory clause describes an intent such as not leaving your possessions to your bratty kids. the operative clause follows to give instructions on the accomplishment of a prefatory clause, such as leaving all of your possessions to your cat instead.

 

so when you think about it, the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the states to have working militias. the way to accomplish this is to allow the people to bear arms. so it really comes into scrutiny because if it's not accomplishing the intent (the prefatory clause) is it subject to supervision? i don't like the 2nd amendment for this very reason because the operative clause can contradict the prefatory clause in intent and action.

 

 

ferguson is a weird name for an iraqi village
Message 81 of 151 (211 Views)
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
54760 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

[ Edited ]
Jan 16, 2014

Hannah that is not an accurate assessment of the intent of the language.  I formed this opinion from reviewing the other documents outlining the actual debate on the 2nd ammendment at the time it was written, such as the federalist papers.   I gave reference to this in the first post.

 

The colonists just finished fighting a war for 2 years against state militias that were sponsored by england.  The commas in the 2nd amendment are meant to keep the people separate from the state and the militia.  This was so the state nor militia would have the legal authority to infringe upon the people's right to bear arms.

 

I explained this very clearly in the first post.  

 

I find it telling that people want to debate grammar instead of intent.

 

 

 

Message 82 of 151 (198 Views)
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 10/09/2013
Offline
573 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 16, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Hannah that is not an accurate assessment of the intent of the language.  I formed this opinion from reviewing the other documents outlining the actual debate on the 2nd ammendment at the time it was written, such as the federalist papers.   I gave reference to this in the first post.

 

The colonists just finished fighting a war for 2 years against state militias that were sponsored by england.  The commas in the 2nd amendment are meant to keep the people separate from the state and the militia.  This was so the state nor militia would have the legal authority to infringe upon the people's right to bear arms.

 

I explained this very clearly in the first post.  

 

I find it telling that people want to debate grammar instead of intent.

 

 

 


the commas are used to distinguish an object. unless you're suggesting our founding fathers were illiterate to 18th century syntax, suggests that the right to bear arms is the operative clause for the state to maintain a militia. the militia is formed by the state - police officers, state bureaus, state guards, etc. the language indicates that the people of these militias shall have the right to bear arms. your richard lee quote is completely off-base, idealistic standards of a militia doesn't mean that all people are, in fact, a militia. that's just taking something out of context for your own benefit.

 

the problem is that you cannot assume a dependent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the subject of the sentence because "a well regulated militia" is followed by a modifying phrase. instead we have to assume that there is a prefatory and operative clause otherwise the grammar would be incorrect. there are a few advocates who would love to grasp at the idea that "the rights" is the subject and "shall" is the verb but you seperate the subject from the predicate with the verb not even being in the dependent clause - instead it's in the subject complement.

 

it's the bane of the constitution - these grammatical rules have been around since the late 16th century and the commas turn clauses into complements and phrases that invalidate many assumptions.

 

the problem with your analysis is that you read it exactly as you think it's read, "since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." by this logic you'd be correct because what it's saying is that the people have the right to keep arms because of the militia, that is people were able to arm themselves against police officers and military personnel if the situation became dire enough.

 

however that's not what it says. combining phrases into clauses that support an idea is the kind of malfeasance people usually disdain. it's changing around grammar to fit within an idea.

ferguson is a weird name for an iraqi village
Message 83 of 151 (183 Views)
0 Likes
Platinum
Registered: 12/21/2007
Online
54760 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 16, 2014

Your argument is not taking into account all 3 commas (again, your first response with the colors ignored the first comma also). You are also, based off this, making an assumption.  Your assumption is incorrect as evidenced by the discussion amongst the founders in the federalist papers.  This is where my issue with your opinion stems from Smiley Wink.

 

Read federalist paper # 46 and you will begin to understand where the founders were coming from much better.

 

 

Message 84 of 151 (177 Views)
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 10/09/2013
Offline
573 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 16, 2014

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Your argument is not taking into account all 3 commas (again, your first response with the colors ignored the first comma also). You are also, based off this, making an assumption.  Your assumption is incorrect as evidenced by the discussion amongst the founders in the federalist papers.  This is where my issue with your opinion stems from Smiley Wink.

 

Read federalist paper # 46 and you will begin to understand where the founders were coming from much better.

 

 


it doesn't ignore the first comma, the first and third commas don't separate clauses but phrases. unless you want to, there's no need to look at them as phrases because there's no constructive point. keep is also a verb, while to is a preposition. we don't have to identify all of the parts of speech if the discussion sits wholly on clauses.

 

federalist papers also don't really mean much since english is english and you can't do anything to change that. the founders believed in a lot of things but what they believed in, unless expressed in the constitution, is not constitutional authority. only the constitution holds constitutional authority and, as such, without the injunction of phrases the 2nd amendment is readable both ways.

ferguson is a weird name for an iraqi village
Message 85 of 151 (172 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14608 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 17, 2014

hannah-goes-rawr wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Your argument is not taking into account all 3 commas (again, your first response with the colors ignored the first comma also). You are also, based off this, making an assumption.  Your assumption is incorrect as evidenced by the discussion amongst the founders in the federalist papers.  This is where my issue with your opinion stems from Smiley Wink.

 

Read federalist paper # 46 and you will begin to understand where the founders were coming from much better.

 

 


it doesn't ignore the first comma, the first and third commas don't separate clauses but phrases. unless you want to, there's no need to look at them as phrases because there's no constructive point. keep is also a verb, while to is a preposition. we don't have to identify all of the parts of speech if the discussion sits wholly on clauses.

 

federalist papers also don't really mean much since english is english and you can't do anything to change that. the founders believed in a lot of things but what they believed in, unless expressed in the constitution, is not constitutional authority. only the constitution holds constitutional authority and, as such, without the injunction of phrases the 2nd amendment is readable both ways.


If we just get into grammar and ignore the discussion about the topic (Fed. papers, for example), we ignore a very important part of interpreting what they wrote. We need to look at the intent. Not just what the literature says and our diagnosis of what the commas mean. These guys even used the wrong "its". They may have been well-read for the most part, but they were not English professors. 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 86 of 151 (166 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 05/09/2006
Offline
6101 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 17, 2014
See this is why I want time machines. Cause I doubt half the guns we have today the founding fathers never thought imaginable.

I mean im not a fan of government restriction but just letting everyone have whatever they want typically ends badly. I mean isnt there a reason why everyone is trying their hardest not to let iran play with nukes? Or north korea (if they actually figured it out)

Two people with the same gun are not equal. That said the laughably easy method of getting guns illegally is there so the people who really shouldnt have guns get them anyway. So why punish the good folk?

But yeah I want my equal right to own a rail gun. Id probably never use it but itd be **bleep** cool.
 photo newforumsig_zps5ec69817.png
Message 87 of 151 (158 Views)
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 10/09/2013
Offline
573 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 17, 2014

bob-maul wrote:

hannah-goes-rawr wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

Your argument is not taking into account all 3 commas (again, your first response with the colors ignored the first comma also). You are also, based off this, making an assumption.  Your assumption is incorrect as evidenced by the discussion amongst the founders in the federalist papers.  This is where my issue with your opinion stems from Smiley Wink.

 

Read federalist paper # 46 and you will begin to understand where the founders were coming from much better.

 

 


it doesn't ignore the first comma, the first and third commas don't separate clauses but phrases. unless you want to, there's no need to look at them as phrases because there's no constructive point. keep is also a verb, while to is a preposition. we don't have to identify all of the parts of speech if the discussion sits wholly on clauses.

 

federalist papers also don't really mean much since english is english and you can't do anything to change that. the founders believed in a lot of things but what they believed in, unless expressed in the constitution, is not constitutional authority. only the constitution holds constitutional authority and, as such, without the injunction of phrases the 2nd amendment is readable both ways.


If we just get into grammar and ignore the discussion about the topic (Fed. papers, for example), we ignore a very important part of interpreting what they wrote. We need to look at the intent. Not just what the literature says and our diagnosis of what the commas mean. These guys even used the wrong "its". They may have been well-read for the most part, but they were not English professors. 


they actually knew quite a lot about english which is why the duality of the language is still important. madison in particular shows no signs of not understanding how phrases work because his works are often grammatically correct. the stress of the clauses make the 2nd amendment readable in two ways depending on who you ask because of the four phrases:

 

- a well regulated militia shall not be infringed

- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

the federalist papers are disregarded because they are not the constitution. trying to wrestle any sort of clarity out of it because different papers give a respective viewpoint is negligent to the understanding of the constitution and james madison for a selfish agenda.

ferguson is a weird name for an iraqi village
Message 88 of 151 (153 Views)
0 Likes
Wastelander
Registered: 10/09/2013
Offline
573 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 17, 2014
in other words, the way that the 2nd amendment is written (which shows no evidence of being grammatically misinterpreted since madison was well versed like many of the founders), you have it written in two fashions:

[Subject] [Subject Completive] [Dependent Clause] [Predicate]

[Subject Completive] [Participle Phrase] [Subject] [Predicate]

the interpretation is up in the air and the federalist papers cannot prove or disprove anything since all they actually do is enforce the idea that the founders knew english and the delicate language was not a mistake.
ferguson is a weird name for an iraqi village
Message 89 of 151 (151 Views)
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 11/04/2012
Offline
1581 posts
 

Re: The United States Constitution: 2nd Amendment

Jan 17, 2014

Setzaroth wrote:

Da_Almighty_Guy wrote:

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

What, in your opinion, was the spirit of the law when it was created?

What Was it truly intended for (in your opinion again)?


 

I know I'm jumping in here, but these are good questions to go along with the amendment at hand.

 

The whole point of this law was to make sure that the American public would be able to defend itself in case there was any kind of attack occurring. In order to understand this more easily, you need to look at the time period at which the law was created; the newly formed U.S had just fought a war with Great Britain and considering that the British were all around in the former colonies, the public needed a way to defend itself if need be. This mentality is completely different nowadays, since there really isn't a homefront threat anymore, unlike the 1700s.

 


Um, yes...there is. Obama is creating a personal military to do who knows what...


I lol'd

 

Anyway, anything can be interrupted anyway people feel like it.  I mean come on...

 

beararms

 

I think it is exactly as Pilgrim has stated, to the letter.

 

I also thing its old, out dated, and doesn't fit into today's society.

doc shady signature
Message 90 of 151 (142 Views)
0 Likes