There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
Preamble to the articles of amendment transmitted to the states (emphasis added):
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment is only an inactive prefatory statement of a foundational principle.
The restrictive clause is legally substantive (operative) and independent.
You are violating the simple directive stated by Congress as the reason the Bill of Rights exists. You are conjuring undefined and unlimited powers from a sentence fragment that can't be argued with a straight face to have any legal operation . . .
How does you interpretation work to extend public confidence in the federal government by adding prefatory declarations of principle and restrictive, "operative" clauses to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers?
Guess what? It doesn't, your interpretation works directly against what the Bill of Rights is and does; your entire position is one of misconstructing the 2nd to endorse the abuse of federal powers.
You are exactly what the Federalists warned about, "men disposed to usurp" that endeavor to twist and misconstruct the words chosen to protect the right into illegitimate powers to destroy the right.
"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining [a fundamental right] afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
Your interpretation was in the minds of the founders / framers, as something to be warned about and vigilant for its rise and fought against whenever it appears.
I already have a license to own a gun; it's called a birth certificate.
I posted this earlier in the thread, but I'll post it again, because it deserves repeating. How anyone could present an argument against this is beyond me.
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
why do you want criminals to have the upper hand against your neighbors and fellow citizens.
as I educated you earlier-the weapons most useful for assassination and revolution are not the same as the ones Democrats are trying to ban. You are trying to ban the best defensive weapons so its is obvious to me, the goal of the Democrats is not to protect cops from rebelling patriots but to protect criminals from their intended victims
why do gun banners side with criminals over honest citizens?
Only to clarify and reinforce the right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
Further to clarify that the militia part was actually just the the supporting reasoning, and that the underlying reasoning was actually "so the government does not have a monopoly on deadly force."
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)