The idea that a right is conditional on joining a state-run militia is absurd - that's not a "right" anyone would care about that would ever need to be written down.
That's a good point. I don't think I've seen that raised before. It seems highly unlikely the drafters would think they needed the Constitution to say the military has the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Obviously this amendment needs to be rewritten as it no longer is applicable to conditions today.
These questions the guns advocates can not and will not answer.
(1) Why did the founding fathers include the language, "a well armed and WELL REGULATED militia ......." Its because the government might need to call these armed civilians to fight for the country in military service. If you don't believe that, then explain the following sentence:
(2) that if a person due to religious reasons can't "bear arms" then he wouldn't be forced to be in the military.
(3) Why didn't the founding father just include the first clause (right to bear arms) and not include the rest of the amendment. Why were the last two sentences included?
Also what state constitutions say about this is irellevant.
That's a good point. I don't think I've seen that raised before. It seems highly unlikely the drafters would think they needed the Constitution to say the military has the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Obviously this amendment needs to be rewritten as it no longer is applicable to conditions today.
These questions the guns advocates can not and will not answer.
(1) Why did the founding fathers include the language, "a well armed and WELL REGULATED militia ......." Its because the government might need to call these armed civilians to fight for the country in military service. If you don't believe that, then explain the following sentence:
Okay, and how would that change the fact that it's an individual right?
El Runkin answered that pretty succinctly already - a militia announces a purpose that makes the right necessary, not a limitation. It's a little pompous to say "gun advocates can not and will not answer" something that's already been answered, both here, and in D.C. v. Heller, isn't it?
FYI what you posted is not the actual text of the 2nd Amendment.
That's a good point. I don't think I've seen that raised before. It seems highly unlikely the drafters would think they needed the Constitution to say the military has the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
These questions the guns advocates can not and will not answer.
(1) Why did the founding fathers include the language, "a well armed and WELL REGULATED militia ......." Its because the government might need to call these armed civilians to fight for the country in military service. If you don't believe that, then explain the following sentence:
(2) that if a person due to religious reasons can't "bear arms" then he wouldn't be forced to be in the military.
(3) Why didn't the founding father just include the first clause (right to bear arms) and not include the rest of the amendment. Why were the last two sentences included?
Also what state constitutions say about this is irellevant.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are getting at with sentence (2) and reconciling it with your sentence (1). What is sentence (2)? I'm not familiar with it. At first glance, it appears to have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
What gun advocates are you talking to that cannot and will not answer your questions about the "well-regulated militia" clause and its relationship to the "bear arms" clause? I mean if you're talking to those guys with the lopsided heads and the cargo shorts, you shouldn't have been expecting much of answer. Now if you're talking to highly sophisticated, neo-urbane gun nuts like myself, as Hardloper pointed out to you such advocates may take a first crack at answering your question by directing you to the Hellerdecision linked below (again).
If Heller doesn't answer your questions regarding the "well-regulated militia" and "bear arms" clauses, let me know and I'll try to get you straightened out one way or the other.
These questions the guns advocates can not and will not answer.
(1) Why did the founding fathers include the language, "a well armed and WELL REGULATED militia ......." Its because the government might need to call these armed civilians to fight for the country in military service. If you don't believe that, then explain the following sentence:
(2) that if a person due to religious reasons can't "bear arms" then he wouldn't be forced to be in the military.
(3) Why didn't the founding father just include the first clause (right to bear arms) and not include the rest of the amendment. Why were the last two sentences included?
Also what state constitutions say about this is irellevant.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are getting at with sentence (2) and reconciling it with your sentence (1). What is sentence (2)? I'm not familiar with it. At first glance, it appears to have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
What gun advocates are you talking to that cannot and will not answer your questions about the "well-regulated militia" clause and its relationship to the "bear arms" clause? I mean if you're talking to those guys with the lopsided heads and the cargo shorts, you shouldn't have been expecting much of answer. Now if you're talking to highly sophisticated, neo-urbane gun nuts like myself, as Hardloper pointed out to you such advocates may take a first crack at answering your question by directing you to the Hellerdecision linked below (again).
If Heller doesn't answer your questions regarding the "well-regulated militia" and "bear arms" clauses, let me know and I'll try to get you straightened out one way or the other.
Pretty lazy response. Heller does not answer questions. It raises more than answers. It creates whole classifications and contradict itself at several turns.
Basically, Heller is saying “ bro we can just ignore that prefactory clause because nobody really meant it”.
Furthermore, the well written dissect rebuts this quite well but I guess you stopped reading after you saw what you wanted to see
I'm sure you would. I'm sure you've picked your feet in Poughkeepsie too.
But you'd have a hard time criticizing or grading the Heller decision (linked below again), (1) because you've never read it, (2) you never will read it, (3) no one you know has read it, and (4) something else about your abilities and looks.
your I've read the first half of Heller and I have a slavish devotion to the incorrect words of Scalia isn't the dunk you think it is.
Acting like there is Heller is unimpeachable and ignoring that many (if not most) legal scholars to this day think it was a horrible decision simply tells me you are one of the federalist society nerds who has lost touch with reality.
impressive fall today for your boy Biden. Couldn't get up by himself of course, the good news is he prolly already forgot he fell and wondering where the bruises came from
it hasn't been raised because it is idiotic. The FF were fearful of a standing army, thus they needed "the people" (Remember we are only talking white male landowners) to provide their own weapons. Heller's claim that an individual right was the reason for 2A simply isn't true because of the need for a militia. Non military (or militia) uses of the phrase "bear arms" were non-existent in the day. No one "beared arms" against rabbits or trees. Context matters.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are getting at with sentence (2) and reconciling it with your sentence (1). What is sentence (2)? I'm not familiar with it. At first glance, it appears to have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
What gun advocates are you talking to that cannot and will not answer your questions about the "well-regulated militia" clause and its relationship to the "bear arms" clause? I mean if you're talking to those guys with the lopsided heads and the cargo shorts, you shouldn't have been expecting much of answer. Now if you're talking to highly sophisticated, neo-urbane gun nuts like myself, as Hardloper pointed out to you such advocates may take a first crack at answering your question by directing you to the Hellerdecision linked below (again).
If Heller doesn't answer your questions regarding the "well-regulated militia" and "bear arms" clauses, let me know and I'll try to get you straightened out one way or the other.
Pretty lazy response. Heller does not answer questions. It raises more than answers. It creates whole classifications and contradict itself at several turns.
It was lazy in the sense that I didn't explain the answers to him, and just referred him to a source (where he can get detailed answers). Keep in mind, this guy Conundrum claimed he was unaware of any arguments that could reconcile the two clauses in the Second Amendment in way such that individual rights to bear arms are protected. So he's obviously somewhat shut off from the world to begin with. And then he asked that weird, confused question that looks like he was trying to link in conscientious objectors to the mix. So I kind of politely wrote him off as another uninformed nitwit, and hoped he may learn something by reading Heller.
Too much fish wrote:
Basically, Heller is saying “ bro we can just ignore that prefactory clause because nobody really meant it”.
That's not true. You know that's not true. Come on, bro. The majority gave plenty of meaning to the prefatory clause. That opinion is somewhat famous for how Scalia drilled down on every single word from every direction. A better criticism of Scalia might have been "bro, let's not overthink this . . ."
You apparently don't agree with the majority in Heller, but I don't think you can say it was glibly written like you are suggesting.
Too much fish wrote:
Furthermore, the well written dissect rebuts this quite well but I guess you stopped reading after you saw what you wanted to see
No, I read the whole thing several times years ago, and then skimmed portions some today. The dissent did a good job, made a lot of sense, had some good points. I haven't discussed the dissent because it hasn't really come up, has it? I'm talking to a gaggle of turks who probably didn't know Heller existed until they saw it in this thread. When do I need to start talking about the dissent?
You are referring to Hardloper's point that it wouldn't make sense that the drafters would be so concerned that the country's military might be banned from owning arms that they needed to codify that can't happen in a Constitution. Sorry, but that is a good point. It's an excellent point. It would be like being worried that the Navy would be banned from owning boats, so you needed to codify the Navy's right to sail. Unlikely concerns.
And I didn't say it hadn't been raised, just that I hadn't seen it.
The FF were fearful of a standing army, thus they needed "the people" (Remember we are only talking white male landowners) to provide their own weapons. Heller's claim that an individual right was the reason for 2A simply isn't true because of the need for a militia. Non military (or militia) uses of the phrase "bear arms" were non-existent in the day. No one "beared arms" against rabbits or trees. Context matters.
Eh, when people start throwing in stuff like "white male" into these Constitutional discussions, my eyes start to cross. But this statement by you: "Heller's claim that an individual right was the reason for 2A simply isn't true because of the need for a militia" leads me to believe (again) that you never read Heller and are going off a cheat sheet. You have it totally backwards. Heller is saying that the need for militia is why you can't fvck with individual gun rights in the first place. Necessary militias become impossible if the citizens don't have arms to begin with is the theory. Can't do the former without the latter. It's a cart before the horse thing, not a poncey rabbits and trees type thing.
Remember when people would sniff at Joe's low unemployment rate and say 'well what about the low workforce participation rate?
Well here's what's about it. 20-year highs. 20 -year highs. Joe-nomics delivering.
20-year high in prime-age labor force participation. Who knows how high it can go if the labor market stays strong:
baby boomers retiring in droves.
Trump is going to DeStroy Ronald DeSanctimorial. RINOs will go home DeSimated. This Second Amendment issues that has so divided America trends way on the Trump side. Trump will ensure that all decent, god-fearing Americans have access to affordable weapons, while Joe-RINO DeSanctify grovels to the cowardly elitest liberals in their ivory boxes thumbing their nostrils at the average American trying to defend his home from the huddled masses who have teemed our shores in refuse.
Oh Trumpy, leader of the Republican Party, are you STILL hiding stolen classified documents??????
The answer is yes, he is almost certainly still hiding stolen classified documents.
Nice choice you 'conservatives' made there.
NYT:
Shortly after learning that former President Donald J. Trump had been recorded discussing what appeared to be classified material describing military options for confronting Iran, federal prosecutors issued a subpoena to his lawyers seeking the return of all records that resembled the document he mentioned, two people familiar with the matter said on Friday.
But Mr. Trump’s legal team was unable to find any such records in his possession, the people said. It is unclear whether prosecutors have been able to track down the document themselves, leaving open the possibility that the material remains at large or that the famously blustery Mr. Trump incorrectly described it on the recording.
Question for anybody who wants to answer. How are we able to ban certain guns when the constitution clearly states “shall not be infringed?” You would think banning automatic rifles and whatnot is infringement
Question for anybody who wants to answer. How are we able to ban certain guns when the constitution clearly states “shall not be infringed?” You would think banning automatic rifles and whatnot is infringement
Hunter -- this should be a slam dunk for you as an aspiring lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of speech is not absolute. There are exceptions. Doesn't the same apply to the 2nd?
Question for anybody who wants to answer. How are we able to ban certain guns when the constitution clearly states “shall not be infringed?” You would think banning automatic rifles and whatnot is infringement
If you actually wanted to know, you could read section III of the Heller case that's been mentioned a dozen times in the last 2-3 pages. Or several other easily located SupCou cases that discuss your question in depth.
Are you sure want to go to law school? They actually make you answer questions like the one you just asked, and then they grade you on your ability to do so. And contrary to current popular belief, they won't go easy on you for being a white male. Druthers are afforded to others.
Question for anybody who wants to answer. How are we able to ban certain guns when the constitution clearly states “shall not be infringed?” You would think banning automatic rifles and whatnot is infringement
The second amendment does not mention "guns.' It says the right to bear "arms" shall not be infringed.
I don't think private individuals are allowed to possess tanks, artilleries, fighter planes, strategic bombers, nuclear warheads or aircraft carriers. Aren't they all "arms"?
