libs: if 2nd amendment is for "militia" why do "people" have the right
| Razzle frum party of the first part | 03/27/18 | | Rose national filthpig | 03/27/18 | | Tripping school | 03/27/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/27/18 | | Domesticated stage weed whacker | 03/27/18 | | adventurous alpha | 03/27/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/27/18 | | Tripping school | 03/27/18 | | Orange Apoplectic Hell | 03/27/18 | | Tripping school | 03/27/18 | | Medicated Sweet Tailpipe Depressive | 03/28/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/28/18 | | awkward dashing digit ratio | 03/28/18 | | ruddy main people | 03/27/18 | | Fragrant Abusive Rigpig | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | Fragrant Abusive Rigpig | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | Fragrant Abusive Rigpig | 03/27/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/27/18 | | Fragrant Abusive Rigpig | 03/27/18 | | awkward dashing digit ratio | 03/28/18 | | Razzle frum party of the first part | 03/27/18 | | copper corner | 03/27/18 | | Vermilion cerebral puppy personal credit line | 03/28/18 | | Razzle frum party of the first part | 03/28/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/28/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/27/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/28/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | coral people who are hurt stage | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | coral people who are hurt stage | 03/27/18 | | wonderful misanthropic ladyboy mad cow disease | 03/27/18 | | coral people who are hurt stage | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/27/18 | | coral people who are hurt stage | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | Up-to-no-good skinny woman | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/27/18 | | Up-to-no-good skinny woman | 03/27/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/27/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/27/18 | | Up-to-no-good skinny woman | 03/27/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/27/18 | | Flushed alcoholic famous landscape painting stock car | 03/27/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/27/18 | | Comical Orchestra Pit | 03/27/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/28/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/30/18 | | Chartreuse confused jew | 03/28/18 | | Curious self-centered son of senegal | 03/27/18 | | adventurous alpha | 03/27/18 | | Tripping school | 03/27/18 | | Vermilion cerebral puppy personal credit line | 03/28/18 | | Ebony Factory Reset Button Cruise Ship | 03/27/18 | | copper corner | 03/27/18 | | Lake death wish preventive strike | 03/27/18 | | Ebony Factory Reset Button Cruise Ship | 03/28/18 | | Lake death wish preventive strike | 03/28/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/28/18 | | appetizing wild windowlicker | 03/28/18 | | Chartreuse confused jew | 03/28/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/28/18 | | Chartreuse confused jew | 03/28/18 | | appetizing wild windowlicker | 03/30/18 | | Soggy sanctuary community account | 03/28/18 | | Garnet university | 03/28/18 | | opaque gas station milk | 03/28/18 | | Garnet university | 03/28/18 | | ivory boiling water | 03/28/18 | | salmon razzle-dazzle theater stage associate | 03/28/18 | | opaque gas station milk | 03/28/18 | | Garnet university | 03/28/18 | | doobsian outnumbered gunner | 03/28/18 | | Razzle frum party of the first part | 03/29/18 | | big candlestick maker foreskin | 03/28/18 | | Flirting chapel roast beef | 03/28/18 | | Provocative Twisted Volcanic Crater | 03/28/18 | | Curious self-centered son of senegal | 03/30/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:41 PM Author: Razzle frum party of the first part
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.
Congress could've written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704484) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:48 PM Author: Fragrant Abusive Rigpig
i'm glad you don't like me.
you're an idiot
correct on this point, however
are there any arguments where the right uses a prefatory clause to support its position? it's not a horrible argument, but there is a reason we don't see inter alia everywhere
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704523) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:58 PM Author: Fragrant Abusive Rigpig
did prefatory clauses represent the only reason for operative clauses at the time the constitution was drafted?
i don't know, but i assume not since i've never heard that argued.
i do think the argument for 'people' meaning all citizens makes more sense from a logical and textualist perspective
i do think that all of the other bill of rights being for individual citizens means the 2a is also for individual citizens makes more sense
but, as i said above, i don't think the prefatory argument is baseless
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704603) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 8:52 PM Author: Razzle frum party of the first part
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35704559) |
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:39 AM Author: Vermilion cerebral puppy personal credit line
Good law?
This was the question presented in Heller:
Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706484) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:51 PM Author: doobsian outnumbered gunner
Nonsense. You proposed a metarule based on how you say someone would read the prefatory clause today. I gave a two tiered response: (i) you have the wrong interpretative frame, since you interpret a text based on how it would be understood by contemporaries (mod oddities like express delegations); and, (ii) in any event, you are simply wrong that, in any scheme, past or present, a statement as to purpose etc. would override the operative text of a piece of legal text.
It is in fact you who have the problem of being unable to hang on to one level of generality. You have no principle; originalists at least have the social fiction that there was a supermajority that bound future generations through valid process, or a bill that made it through bicameralism and presentment.
Feel free, in short, to make your arguments; just do not call your enterprise "law."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705065) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 9:48 PM Author: Comical Orchestra Pit
You're a moron.
" In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption."
I'm sure you'll just call anyone who disagrees with your personal biases "biased" or "illiterate" but that just proves that you have no genuine argument to make. You're just like a pro se litigant: when all else fails just claim there's a conspiracy against you.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705040) |
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:05 PM Author: adventurous alpha
Also, I'd like to point out that the Constitution writers had no fucking clue when to use a comma.
Setting aside the second amendment, just look at these monstrosities:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35705888) |
|
Date: March 27th, 2018 11:44 PM Author: Tripping school
not just them, but the authors of the 26th amendment, too, which yields a fucking lulzy result where US citizenship is premised entirely on age
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Notice the non-restrictivity of that "who are 18yo or older" clause. It defines "citizens of the United States" as people 18+ yo.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706212) |
Date: March 28th, 2018 12:47 AM Author: appetizing wild windowlicker
Like all amendments, you just pick the outcome you want and then come up with the support for it after the fact. You can decide the prefatory clause matters or not.
I don't see a lot of value in trying to discern the original intent of the founders hundreds of years on. For example, I don't see why the language of the 2nd Amendment doesn't extend to shit like RPGs if you buy the founders thought people should have an unfettered right to weaponry.
It's all fraud lies.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35706504)
|
Date: March 28th, 2018 10:01 AM Author: Garnet university
To answer OP's question, I'd argue that it's because militias weren't necessarily precise, identifiable, long-lasting entities that you could easily assign a right to. In those times, a "militia" might be called if a robber was on the loose in a county. The "militia" wasn't necessarily a formal organization but just a bunch of local guys with rifles getting together to handle a situation that the local government (often lacking formal police or enforcement) couldn't.
This actually still helps the conservative interpretation. Even if you argue, as liberals do, that the introductory clause limits the right to those situations where a militia is needed, one could still argue that the framer's intended a broad definition of "militia" that means a lot more than some irregular army fighting an invasion or the government.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3931334&forum_id=2#35707992) |
|
|