Page 56 of 56 FirstFirst ... 646545556
Results 551 to 559 of 559

Thread: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

  1. #551
    Student Gondwanaland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    07-15-18 @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    221

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post




    It is clearly a failure of State legislatures to organize the militia. We simply need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.

    Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia!
    Let's leave aside your embarassing lack of knowledge as to what "state" refers to there and address the rest of this, namely your ignorance revolving around this clause.

    The Amendment is about the right of the people (note, not the right of the militia - the PEOPLE) to keep and bear arms not being infringed. One example of the need for that given, is a the need for a militia for the security of the country. You seem to have taken the prefatory clause and tried to assert it is the subject of the amendment, when all it is is an example, an amplifier for the objective clause - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  2. #552
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,819

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Let's leave aside your embarassing lack of knowledge as to what "state" refers to there and address the rest of this, namely your ignorance revolving around this clause.

    The Amendment is about the right of the people (note, not the right of the militia - the PEOPLE) to keep and bear arms not being infringed. One example of the need for that given, is a the need for a militia for the security of the country. You seem to have taken the prefatory clause and tried to assert it is the subject of the amendment, when all it is is an example, an amplifier for the objective clause - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    lol. Did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise? all y'all do, is fix Bad moral Standards for less fortunate illegals.

    The People Are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People are declared Necessary, not the whole and entire, unorganized militia.

    Only the right wing, never gets it; but love to project and resort to hearsay and soothsay instead of producing actual, valid arguments for rebuttal.

  3. #553
    Student Gondwanaland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    07-15-18 @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    221

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    lol. Did you know, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise? all y'all do, is fix Bad moral Standards for less fortunate illegals.

    The People Are the Militia. Only well regulated militia of the whole People are declared Necessary, not the whole and entire, unorganized militia.

    Only the right wing, never gets it; but love to project and resort to hearsay and soothsay instead of producing actual, valid arguments for rebuttal.
    patently false. i suggest you learn what a prefatory clause is.

  4. #554
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,819

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    patently false. i suggest you learn what a prefatory clause is.
    lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

  5. #555
    Student Gondwanaland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    07-15-18 @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    221

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
    that is not a rebuttal of the facts. That's shoving your fingers in your ears like a four year old and going "lalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalala"

    try again, and educate yourself before speaking.

  6. #556
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,819

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    that is not a rebuttal of the facts. That's shoving your fingers in your ears like a four year old and going "lalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalala"

    try again, and educate yourself before speaking.
    You have no facts, Only right wing propaganda and rhetoric. Why appeal to authority instead of Reason?

  7. #557
    Student Gondwanaland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    07-15-18 @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    221

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    You have no facts, Only right wing propaganda and rhetoric. Why appeal to authority instead of Reason?
    okay it's clear that you cannot debate like an adult.

    To people who actually are adults and interested in learning, I'll post something I posted in another forum on the subject, to people actually interested in educating themselves.

    The historical context directly supports my view. The use of prefatory clauses in the exact same sort of way is quite visible in other laws and constitutions of the time. The prefatory clause is doing exactly what it does - giving an example of a reason for the importance of the objective clause. Not defining the only use of the objective clause. It announces one purpose (of many) of the operative clause - it does not limit the operative clause as that is not its function.

    Certainly, (a well regulated militia was) one, of the many, reasons for it being written, the prefatory clause recognized and stated one of the reasons for the recognition of the right of the PEOPLE (again, not the militia) to keep and bear arms.

    But indeed, it was far more than just the militia. For example here was from the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, the anti-federalist dissenters in what was the start of the recognition of a need for a Bill of Rights to be enshrined after the constitution was ratified:

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power." - Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to their Constituents" (Dec. 18, 1787)


    ---
    ---

    But lets break the amendment down better since you seem to not quite grasp the function of the prefatory clause.

    Let's say this amendment was placed into the constitution: "A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

    Now, would you break that down, and come forward claiming that the above means that only those who are part of a well educated electorate (presumably with the government or yourself deciding who is well-educated) has the right to keep and read books? Of course not. It says very clearly it is the right of the people, not just those that happen to be considered "well educated" and who can vote as part of the electorate.

    Starting to get it? It's certainly different looking when you look at another right through the same lens, no matter how hypothetical, isn't it.

    =
    =

    Let's look at the phrasing slightly different. Let's say the constitution said "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

    Now, would you look at that and tell us that it is indicating that only people who are considered to be part of the press have the right to publish their sentiments on any subject? Normal people who aren't part of the press don't have that right? Of course not - it very clearly recognizes the right of any person, not just the press mentioned in the prefatory clause, to publish their sentiments on any subject. But the former is what we would say if we use your logic there that you use on the second amendment and its prefatory clause.

    Think that one is farfetched? Well it's not - it's literally word for word in the first constitution of Rhode Island.

    That's the way language was used at this time, when prefatory clauses like that were much more common in laws. They did not limit the right detailed in the objective clause, only provided a reason or explanation for the importance of that right to be enshrined and recognized. Rhode Island didn't limit the right to publish only to members of the press, nor did the Bill of Rights limit the right to bear arms only to members of the/a militia. They enshrined the right of the people, and gave those prefatory examples as just that - examples.

  8. #558
    Student Gondwanaland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    07-15-18 @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    221

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    Let's look at what some of the Founders had to say.

    Here was what Adams said in defense (yes, defense) of those soldiers who opened fire in the Boston Massacre: "Here, every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offense" in his opening argument as he served as their legal defense in trial.


    (and we cannot leave without a quote from Madison): "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

  9. #559
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    07-17-18 @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,819

    Re: We have a Second Amendment. Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

    lol. so what. Our Second Amendment is our supreme law of the land. The People are the Militia.

    Natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; stop whining, gun lovers.

Page 56 of 56 FirstFirst ... 646545556

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •