That is a nice *hypothesis *but it has no basis in actual, you know- fact.
Because we have been *increasing *the number of guns over the last decades.
Do you mean the subordinate clause and the main clause? Because those other terms have no meaning anywhere else, since, as you know, they were invented solely for this specific application.
Then it ought to be familiar to you. Why you went on, repeatedly, to discuss the right to self-defense *instead *is something only you can explain. Not that you need bother just for me.
What does the prefatory clause do anyway?
That’s the genius of it, it doesn’t DO anything!
Personally, I find it curious that the 2nd Amendment, clocking in at 27 total words (truly a marvel of brevity), uses 13 of those words on a clause that, for all anybody can tell, doesn’t have any purpose whatsoever. Presumably, the framers of our Constitution were literate and could have used a few words to identify such items as self-defense, or some sort of reasoning as to why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
Instead, they chose to fill the page with words that appear to not have anything to do with the latter half of the amendment. Were they trying to bulk up the document so they’d get a better grade or something?
It may as well say “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, not be infringed.”
It’s 27 words, I counted*
*Bonus points to anyone getting that reference.
I’ll assume you’re being sarcastic. It gets hard to tell sometimes.
I don’t know what the hell I am anymore. I’ve been told my entire life that the right to keep and bear arms is defined by the last 14 words of the 2nd Amendment, and the first 13 words are irrelevant.
Not simply irrelevant to the normal consideration of an individual’s right to own a gun, but completely and entirely irrelevant to anyone’s right to do anything. Those words could literally not exist, or be complete gibberish, and nothing would change about the rights of Americans.
I find that profoundly disturbing. The founders of our country could so thoroughly muck up the job of clarifying an important right that you could replace their words with a description of George Washington’s dentures, and not lose a thing.
Not irrelevant. They are there due to the Founders wanting the States and locals to be able to have a Militia. A Militia made up of men who owned their own guns and would organize for defense. The Minutemen. It was added on, however, the original wording didnt include that phrase.
So while not in any way irrelevant as to history, it is irrelevant to the rights of an American to own a gun.
There were multiple earlier proposals. Every fucking one of them invoked a well-regulated militia.
At the time, they were under the authority of the Articles of Confederation. The actual wording of the proto-Constitution that was actually in effect:
That purpose should also be pretty clear. But there’s nothing in there either about an individual right, is there? That stuff didn’t appear until the last few decades, when the NRA invented it. They also invented the alternate history that goes with the alternate grammar rules.
But before there was a Bill of Rights, many Sates argued that the Constitution was incomplete, and no right to keep and bear arms was one reason given
https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose
of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or
any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public
injury from individuals."…
North Carolina’s convention proposed that a declaration of rights be added
to the Constitution which explicitly identified the right of people to keep and
bear arms as a natural right and one of the means necessary to the pursuit and
obtainment of happiness and safety.Rhode
Island followed an identical course by identifying the right of the people to keep
and bear arms as a natural right, among others, and declining to ratify the
Constitution until after the Bill of Rights had been drafted and submitted.18
To summarize the state ratification process, three states, New York, New
Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified while expressing their understanding that the
people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law
abiding citizens. 83 Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to
ratify until individual rights, including the people’s right to keep and bear armswere recognized by amendments.’ 84 In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, an
effort was made to amend or condition ratification on amendment to include,
among others, the right to keep and bear arms.'85 Efforts to amend were
defeated but not on the merits. There is no evidence from any state convention
that any speaker suggested that the proposed Constitution would permit
disarming the public.
And of course The NRA didnt invent it. It was always a individual right, the main purpose of which was to allow states to organize Militias- comprised of men who owned their own military grade weapons.
The Supreme Court ruled on it after three Cities- Chicago, DC and San francisco tried to take pretty much all guns away. Up until then, SCOTUS had mostly kept away from the 2nd, until gun grabbers in those cities forced their hand. So, if you dont like Heller, then blame them, not SCOTUS.
Which somehow lay dormant for all those generations. How so?
5-4, and also as a result of the NRA reinventing history.
Except to reaffirm what the thing actually says (Miller, as you know but for *some *reason won’t mention).
Oh. I thought you wanted to be taken seriously. Guess I was mistaken.
So, why can’t you own military grade weapons?
Because no government violated the 2nd enough to make the Supreme Court take action.
Miller simply ruled that laws against sawed off shotguns were Ok- based on the fact that the defense never showed up or filed, due to the fact that Miller was already dead. "The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. "
There was no evidence as the prosecution knew full well there wouldn’t be any defense, it was a set up going in.
Yep- “gun grabbers’. If you want to confiscate all handguns and many others in your area, not giving any remuneration , then you are indeed a 'gun grabber”. I dont use that term loosely, but it fits in those three laws.
You can. You can own the AR15. The Beretta 9mm pistol. etc.
Where’s your grenade launcher? Whassamatta, you don’t like freedom?
You’re going to arm a militia with that crap?
You’d be better off with sticks and rocks. At least you might survive an encounter with an actual military force.
Good luck overthrowing the tyrants with their tanks and bombers and nukes, dude. Wolverines!
Yeah, right. How much are machine guns going for these days at Walmart?
Another falsehood. The ruling was that non-military weapons weren’t protected. Really, you could read it.
Excuses, excuses.
If that was relevant to the current discussion, you might have something that could appear to be a point, if seen through a telescope. But here it’s just demonstrating lack of interest in actual discussion.
Let me restate this, as I believe I was unclear:
Rabid pro-gun people don’t even want to answer the question, because they don’t want to admit to the obvious truth that reducing the number of guns (and types, for that matter) will bring down the number of homicides in the US.
My apologies if you misunderstood.
That “truth” is “obvious” to you, but it ain’t a fact. Like you said, violent crime has been going down- and as i said- while the number of guns owned is going up.
There is absolutely no evidence that gun control laws in the USA have reduced violent crime.
This may shock you to learn but grammatical construction is not the sole means courts use to interpret laws. Hell, I’ve seen courts flat out change the wording in a statute when interpreting it. In one case the court found that the conjunctive should be read as the disjunctive. The statute had multiple elements to meet and the language of the statute read that for the statute to apply Elements A and B and C and D all had to be met. The court reasoned, based on non-grammatical evidence, that that interpretation was not what Congress intended and changed the “and” to “or.” So now for the statute to apply Element A or B or C or D would have to be met. That’s quite a difference. What do your grammar rules say about completely changing a word?
Besides, it’s not about how prefatory or subordinate clauses function in grammar, it’s about what meaning the first clause adds to the second. The prefatory/subordinate clause certainly states a reason why the Federal Gov’t shall not infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. It does not logically follow that that is the sole reason contemplated by the Framers. I mean you’ve heard of the Ninth Amendment right? The Framers never intended for the Constitution to be either a comprehensive or exhaustive list of Rights possessed by the people. Nor did they attempt to list every possible reason why those rights were so important. Otherwise the Constitution would be a much, much longer document.
Really? In a debate about the 2nd Amendment where one side claims that the Framers intended for the right to bear arms to be solely tied to service in the militia you don’t see the relevance of evidence showing that the Framers believed in a right to bear arms for other purposes, namely self-defense? Horse, this is water. Water, horse.
I didn’t say there was any such evidence. We have never in this country passed gun control laws that would drastically reduce the number of guns. I am simply saying that if we did in large numbers, homicides by guns would be reduced greatly. For instance, if we were to somehow be able to get rid of, say, 95% of the guns in the country, homicides involving guns as the murder weapon would plummet.