Absolute constructions also aren’t grammatical fossils irrelevant to current English. We still use sentences today that contain free-floating absolutes to modify verbs in the same way as in the Second Amendment, through phrases such as “all things being equal,” “everything being considered,” “weather permitting,” “God willing,” “that being the case.” Here’s another example of an absolute construction defining the reason and occasion for an action: “The first draft of the Second Amendment being repetitive and clunky, James Madison revised it.”
Here’s Madison’s first draft: “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.” In his revision, Madison created a more precise, elegant sentence, comprised of an absolute construction and an independent clause, to become the Second Amendment as we now know it. The grammar of the amendment is clear in both its original and current meaning. What becomes unclear are multiple legal and historical interpretations spawned by rephrasing the amendment.
In his literary analysis, Scalia failed to recognize the grammatical construction of the amendment. The words on the page don’t guarantee citizens an individual right to gun ownership. They say nothing about a protected right to keep guns at home or in the street for self-defense. In 1791, the grammar of the amendment would be understood to declare the limited circumstance for when and why the right to bear arms can’t be infringed. (I’ll add here an originalist historical note to buttress this textualist reading: in colonial times, members of state militias were expected to supply their own weapons.)
Chief Justice Roberts’s oft-repeated proverb that “the want of a horseshoe nail leads to loss of the kingdom” indicates the process by which an initial mistake can create a disastrous chain of causation. Unfortunately, the want of a correct textual reading of the Second Amendment leads to the disastrous loss of its originalist meaning. As Sister Kathleen Mary might say: the Supreme Court has many powers, but alteration of English grammar isn’t one of them.
— Frank Bergon Guns and Grammar, or How to Diagram the Second Amendment
Nice try but wrong as usual. The author fails badly in mischaracterizing the words free state. Every true scholar understand the words to mean “the state of being free” not any political entity, local, state, federal. Just one more effort in the never ending saga of disarming the people.
Another sneaky Gun Control zealot uses a page of blatant lies in an attempt to rewrite and redefine The Second Amendment. Such propaganda happens daily all while some Gun Owners bark at Defining Gun Control According to its History or they just keep quiet like the coward who hears a woman being beaten next door and says nothing.
If the aforementioned silence describes you then you are holding the door open for such daily anti gun propaganda, if you cannot hear the author of this article applauding gun owner silence then you need to pull your head out of your behind.
Anti Gun zealots puff out their chests and think they own the moral high ground because most gun owners have failed miserably to Define Gun Control by its History for a incredibly gullible Public.
It will be a cold day in hell before Gun Control zealots or those on this forum who bark at Defining Gun Control by its History ever debunk what is The Truth About Gun Control.
https://youtu.be/WlItbl9SOAg
Start working from home! Great work for-Ever, Stay at Home Moms OR anyone needs an extra income. Get started. You only need a vgh computer and a reliable computer connection so don’t get late try……. https://02ip.ru/extracash1
“A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done.“
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-a-prefatory-clause.html#/:~:text=A%20prefatory%20clause%20is%20a,why%20it%20should%20be%20done.
As Justice Scalia noted, ‘A well regulated militia’ is a prefatory clause.
As such, it sets out the reason for the ‘right to keep it bear arms’, showing this right is held exclusively within the domain of militia service.
You may notice for example, the First Amendment has no prefatory clause, meaning it operates under all circumstances, not just militia duty.
So if the 2nd Amendment had said, “Dogs being man’s best friend, the right of the people to keep dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, and other small pets shall not be infringed,” then you (Miner49er) would argue that women have no right to keep pets, and that the government can ban cats, hamsters, and gerbils because even though the operative clause says they can’t be banned, the prefatory clause doesn’t mention them!
That’s absurd, but that’s the backasswards way your “logic” works, Miner49er. You surely know that your logic is wrong, so you surely know that you’re lying, but you continue to lie.
miner is earning his 30 pieces of silver. He knows he’s wrong. And he doesn’t care. He’s paid to be here and here he will be.
I was at MU 40+ years ago. The profs were substandard then and with miner on the staff they are still substandard.
“miner on the staff“
Thank you for suggesting that I am on staff at Marshall University, but such is not the case.
And regardless, the information I post, along with the supporting citations, stands for itself.
And you state flatly that I’m paid to be here. Perhaps you would be man enough to post your evidence for the claim you make.
Otherwise, you just look like a lying blow hard.
It’s not a court of law, miner. It’s a chat stream. Why are you here if not paid? If not for pay then you fit the classic example of a troll. I have been to exactly one, one, antigun site in all the years I’ve been on the interwebz. And trolling is a recognized sign of mental illness.
You come here in support of civil rights violations and then act all pure and innocent if challenged. Seems mental to me.
Minor, in the previous post replace”staff” with “erection” and the original intent will be perfectly clear.
You know damn well Miner 49er keeps gerbils, he keeps them in the same place as Richard Gere.
Stuck in NJ, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders the prefatory clause completely meaningless. It reads it out of existence. I found some research on the concept of interpreting a law in a way to avoid rendering part of it meaningless. These quotes are all from court cases: “A basic principle of statutory interpretation is that courts should “give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute, avoiding, if it may be, any construction which implies that the legislature was ignorant of the meaning of the language it employed.” The modern variant is that statutes should be construed “so as to avoid rendering superfluous” any statutory language: “A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant….” The prefatory clause was put in the 2nd amendment intentionally–it is the only stated purpose for the people’s right to keep and bear arms–the need for a well regulated militia. I don’t have a problem with amending the 2nd amendment to get rid of the prefatory clause to achieve the Heller result, but while it is in there it must be operative and meaningful.
Rob, I have a RED HOT NEWS FLASH for you. What you are calling a prefatory, is the same as a PERAMBLE. A preamble or a prefatory are one and the same! A preamble describes WHY what follows is to be done, granted, etc. The 2nd is written with that PREAMBLE shows the NECESSITY of having that individual RIGHT. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. I suggest that you READ (if you are able) the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the AntiFederalist Papers, the 2nd Amendment followed by the Heller, McDonald and Bruen Decisions. Whether you like them or NOT those items Constitution, the 2nd Amendment and the cited decisions are the LAW OF THE LAND. I suggest you learn to live with it
Now your next assignment will be to define what “well regulated” meant at the time Madison authored it…
Then, after you complete that homework assignment, study up on what constitutes a “milita”…
Liar is too “busy” for your assignment as it’s degenerate month.
“Now your next assignment will be to define what “well regulated” meant at the time Madison authored it“
Again, if you folks would bother to read my post and check the citation, you would see that the definition I posted is directly from the Webster’s dictionary of 1828, a contemporaneous literary authority.
“Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. […] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” ~ Richard Henry Lee
Samuel Adams:
“The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Alexander Hamilton:
“…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” A Founder’s case for modern “military style” firearms in the hands of civilians.
I think that settles it. The People are the militia and the right to keep and bear arms, and yes, “military-style arms” are included in that Right, shall not be infringed by the government. Also, speaking of prefatory clauses and preambles, I suggest everyone should read the “preamble to the Bill of Rights” which in part reads, “…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:”
There is lots more history in defense of the Bill of Rights that is in concurrence with the above, but books have been written on it and we don’t need to have them all quoted to prove the point. If you do nothing else, or haven’t already done it, at the least, read the Federalist Papers for insight on the thoughts that went in to the Founding Documents. I think the Heritage Foundation even has a library of lectures on the Papers.
Now, on to the “well regulated militia” argument from the idiots. “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” – George Mason. So, the People are the militia, but what then does “well regulated” mean. “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ~ Alexander Hamilton. Opps, there is another phrase, not from the Constitution but from the writings of Hamilton that states that the People at large, the militia, must be properly armed. In the time of our Founders the term well regulated had at least two meanings – one is laid out in the Articles and one that had nothing to do with marching, but described the condition of accurately firing a gun or cannon; a well maintained gun or cannon. So, taking into account all the information from the history of the times, and I barely scratched the surface of the history of arms, it appears that a “well regulated militia” is a People who can shoot straight and have their arms maintained in good condition and so regulated as to shoot accurately, as required in the Articles. That’s it…for now, but here are a few quote that may keep you up at night…
“The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight.” ~ John F. Kennedy. Of course, THEY killed him and Robert before the plots and “fomentors” could be exposed.
“I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” ~ Douglas MacArthur.
“Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.” ~ William E. Jenner.
In seminars on jurisprudence and contemporary legal theory the professors of both stated the following: “in the end the law is simply one more weapon to use in an ideological war against Constitutional practitioners. Contemporary law has nothing to do with justice or equity.”
MajorLiar,
Well, if you were merely a half-wit, and only uneducated, that might be a half-assed attempt at an “explanation” of a prefatory clause. But since you are a lying quarter-wit, I’m going to call you out on it – because you are a lying liar who lies, and we all know it.
A “prefatory clause” states “A” reason for the operative clause. It may even state the most important reason for the operative clause. (In this case, it does, but you are too stupid, uneducated, ignorant, and dishonest to parse it out, other than as propaganda.)
Was the 2A intended to ENHANCE and ENABLE a “militia”??? Yes, you idiot, yes it was – WHEN was the 2A written, you total @$$-clown???? What had America JUST been through??????? Hmmmm, I guess that’s a poser, for historically-illiterate, lying @$$clowns. Fortunately, the rest of us actually got an education, so we know better.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people EXCEPT FOR A FEW PUBLIC OFFICIALS (emphasis added).”
George Mason
And if the “militia” was intended to be SOLELY for the purpose of being called out by the Federal government (when the standing army, if any, was clearly insufficient to get the job done), then why is it under the control of the members, and the GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ITS FORMATION, for all other purposes??? And why is the right extended to “the people”, if the militia only exists as a rescue blanket for inept federal government??????
“The militia” is, and WAS, in 1792, all free, white men over 18 and under 40. You want THAT to be the extent of the RKBA????? And available only to white men between 18 and 40????? How stupid are you, you lying, racist pr*ck?????
You are not only illiterate, unschooled, ungrammatical, and historically ignorant, you are a lying liar who lies.
F*** right the hell off, MajorLiar.
Scania noticed lots of things, even that falsely claimed to be a grammatical error. and as usual Miner49 you leave out context and only choose what suits your confirmation bias. Maybe you missed where Scala also said, basically, its an individual right not connected to service in a militia.
“The prefatory clause states why it should be done.”
The prefatory clause states ONE reason it should be done, not all of the possible reasons. It also doesn’t constrain the operative clause as you would like it to. Just because, “A well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State,” does not mean that, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can be infringed in all other circumstances where militias aren’t at issue.”
The operative clause is perfectly clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Deal with it.
Another gaslight by Miner49er:
“The Amendment’s prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority.”
MINOR Miner49er, I suggest you read the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions.
Have a good day!
Nice try Liar Forty Niner, but epic fail.
there are TWO TYPES of prefatory clauses: DEscriptive, and PREscriptive.
the first type simply describes som aspect of the indeoendent clause. In this case, the right stands on its own not subject to any modifiers, and the prefatory DEscriptive clause merely explains the WHY of the need being necessarily protected. The INDEPENDENT clause is NOT subject to any other clauses to remain operative.
Further, go and learn the definition of the word “militia” at the time that Article was written. “who is the militia? Quite simply, the WHOLE of the people armed and skilled….” so eVEN IF yourphoney construction binds, we are STILL upholding the right OF THE WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE (militia) to be armed.
Further, the meaning of the word “free state” simply meant civil society, at any level: village, town, township, county, state, nation, are all forms of “free state”. And for that “free state” to remain “secure” ALL of the people must retain the right to arms.
Miner,
In the words of Thomas Jefferson:
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
When we read the debates of the Constitution and the Amendments, there is no lack of clarity of what the 2A means and how it applies.
The idea that the 2A meant a Citizens had the confirmed Right to bear arms was also shared by the political class as when the 14A was debated. No one doubted that the 2A meant that bearing arms applied beyond Militia service.
Senator Jacob Howard, R-MI :
“…..Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. . . .”
This was in respect to what Rights the freedmen had and what their status as Citizens were. Dred Scott was a concern during the drafting of the 14A, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote that a Black man, even if born free, could not claim rights of citizenship under the federal constitution. The 14A rightly corrected this “misunderstanding” of the SCOTUS.
I have yet in the time of the Constitution thru to the Reconstruction Amendments found anything that would support a “grammatical” error.
Apparently the “grammar error” is gaining popularity as I have seen this mentioned in several other places. However popularity does not mean accuracy of the assertion.
If you have any source that contradicts what I have posted, please by all means share them. And to be clear, I mean sources of the periods from the debates of the Constitution and the Reconstruction era. Southern Statutes really would not count, as the 14A was also directed to remove those statutes that denied freemen Rights.
https://www.nytimes.com/1865/09/10/archives/reconstruction-hon-thaddeus-stevens-on-the-great-topic-of-the-hour.html
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/congressional-debate-on-the-14th-amendment/
We, the People, are the militia. The National Guard belongs to the state. The Tories were part of the British government. The militia was of the citizenry.
MINOR49er. Exactly the OPPOSITE, Leftist. The preamble sets the stage of why it is necessary to have the 2nd Amendment as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. who bounced you Leftist control freaks on your heads?
There is nothing at all except the state for the liberal communist. The state is everything. That frames the reader’s interpretation.
The gobbledygook article we are currently trashing has this as the underlying, silent assumption – “that not specifically permitted is forbidden.”
Standard commie stuff, meant to corrode the rational mind, and re-purpose it for unconditional submission.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.” ~ George Washington
“…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” ~ Alexander Hamilton. An originalist case for modern “military style” firearms in the hands of civilians.
“Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” ~ Joseph Story
“The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” ~ Sam Adams
“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. […] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” ~ Richard Henry Lee
“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.” ~ William Rawle
“The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. They that are on their guard, and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked, than the supine, secure, and negligent.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
“If it were to be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws – the first growing out of the last . . . . A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government.” ~ Alexander Hamilton
“When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.” ~ Alexander Hamilton
“When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.” ~ William E. Jenner
There should be no doubt that the Second Amendment and the word “Militia” refers to the People, and that the intent of the Founders is that the People be armed to protect the Republic from tyranny, both internal and external. Times have changed and the People have been neutered and softened to the point that a successful defense of the country by the citizen soldier is mostly lost should the tyrant gain control of the military resources and personnel inherent in a standing arm, something the Founders saw as a threat to the Republic and guarded against within their writings. Of particular importance is the phrase by Hamilton which says “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms,” which implies that We the People should not be limited in our choice of arms, and that the arms should be “little if at all inferior to those of the army.”
We have people making our laws who have no idea or appreciation for the Founders wisdom and knowledge.
that’s to thin to cast a shadow.
Maybe there’s a penumbra in there somewhere?
Oh I’m sure there is. Try looking just behind the emanation that lies to the right of centre.
While an ablative absolute clause can be used to indicate conditions, that is not their only purpose. They can also be used to explain purpose. Bergon’s interpretation could be rephrased as saying that the People have a right to bear arms that must be respected as long as the government finds it necessary and expedient to do so. Such a provision serves no legal purpose. There is no need to restrain the government from doing a thing, only insofar as it is not inclined to it. The Supreme Court thus rightly rejected Bergon’s interpretation of the ablative absolute as a conditional clause, and rendered it correctly as an announcement of purpose, neither restricting nor limiting the scope of the rights thus protected.
Madison also noted in The Federalist Papers that the “people” comprise the militia.
Yes, author pulls a bit of misdirection in using examples of conditional clauses (“weather permitting”, “God willing”, etc.) and tries to equate them with an explanatory clause.
All leftist communist democrat arguments require misdirection. Otherwise, no one would vote for them.
“Shall not be infringed”
*mic drop*
The “Right of the PEOPLE”
If the founders had intended military service to be a prerequisite to exercise the right to bear arms, the founders would not have used the word “PEOPLE”.
The founders were wealthy and highly educated. They intended to use these words. There is no evidence to suggest the founders screwed up the wording of the second amendment.
This is the long and short of it, and it takes a fantastic amount of mental gymnastics to purposefully confuse it.
What and who is the Bill of Rights limiting; the government!
Who does the 2nd Amendment say “the right” belong to; “the people”! It’s quite simple and very plain language.
Never consider anyone who argues that the 2nd Amendment is about any kind of right of the government, including a government owned or led militia, to be serious, or for that matter, intelligent enough to have engage in conversation.
“This is the long and short of it, and it takes a fantastic amount of mental gymnastics to purposefully confuse it.”
JWT — may I introduce you to Liar69er, dacien and Albert Hall?
There are no grammatical errors written into the 2nd Amendment regardless of how much the left want there to be. It’s plain and easy to understand.
‘regulated’ does not mean some form of government control.
‘militia’ does not mean a group under government control.
It is a negative power telling government that they don’t have the right to infringe upon the right of the people of this country to have, carry, and use arms. This isn’t complicated. It’s just something the left hates.
‘regulated’ does not mean some form of government control.
No, it quite literally means ‘subject to regulation’.
“REG’ULATE, verb transitive
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.“
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulate#:~:text=1.,2.
regulate=well trained. that is all.
Sure. in 2023. However, in the context of 18th century armies, it meant well equipped and drilled. See the Prussian Kriegsministerium. “Regulations for the Prussian Infantry. To Which Is Added, the Prussian Tactick, Being a Detail of the Grand Manoeuvre, as Performed by the Prussian Armies.”
“Field Service Regulations (felddienst Ordnung, 1908) of the German Army.”
“Sure. in 2023. However, in the context of 18th century armies, it meant well equipped and drilled“
Really? You think something about the Prussian army from 1908 is relevant?
If you would bother to read my actual post and check the link, you will see that the definition I posted is directly from the Webster’s dictionary of 1828 and represents the prevailing definition in early America.
“regulate=well trained“
So you are placing your literary judgment above that of Webster’s dictionary of 1828?
Fascinating.
MINOR Miner49er, Excuse me but where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about “regulate”? There is a program out there called “Reading is Fundamental”. Would you like a link to it?
Excuse me but where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about “regulate”
Hmmmmmmm, kind of what “Well REGULATED Militia” says, and no matter how skewed Minervas take is, it most definitely does say REGULATED.. (at least in MY copy of the Constitution that’s what it says) yours may vary, but pretty sure mine is accurate…
MADDMAXX, I stand corrected but only in part. “well regulated militia” is in the PREAMBLE and do you know what a preamble is?
(Again, rolling my eyes). The crux of the matter is that the 2nd Amendment gives INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND THAT THAT RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Walter… Have you ever READ the SECOND AMENDMENT… The THIRD fucking word of the 2nd amendment IS “R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E-D”
Do you just like being a contrarian or are you THAT dense…
The ACTUAL wording of the Second Amendment as it APPEARS in MY Constitution… NOT a fucking PREAMBLE…
Amendment II
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.
The FIRST part of the 2nd Amendment IS part of the 2nd Amendment… You can tell it’s ACTUALLY part of the Amendment because it FOLLOWS the word AMENDMENT and the Roman Numeral II…
@Any fallacy mongering troll piece of counterrevolutionary swine –
Care to opine what well-regulated double-barrels are? Extra credit: now do well-regulated piano and well-regulated steam engine…
Note that the terms were applied at the time to technology extant at the time, and still are so applied.
I was interested to see how this worked out.
I read it with interest and came to a simple conclusion:
Bullshit.
As I recall, and TTAG published an article I wrote on this subject 5 or 6 years ago, the Second Amendment went through five re-writes before the current phrasing was accepted, not one simple re-write as pretended above.
Even that one simple first draft lead with the right not being infringed, and then explained why. That puts the lie to the articles author’s grammatical mysticism.
A comparison of state equivalents at the might also be illuminating.
Pennsylvania
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=1&sctn=21&subsctn=0&mobile_choice=suppress
§ 21. Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of
themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Much clearer and more direct. And just as often violated.
Concur, and to add –
The reason many of the States have such language in their Constitutions were to hedge bets about the duration and sustainability of the “United States”. IE, if the federal government collapsed, the individual states, with their Constitutions, would still be in effect.
Sad that they infringe on their own Constitutions.
Just more gas lighting from the regressive left. The twisting of language is their speciality. There is a reason they are rooted in the English departments of universities. Twist the language, twist minds. Obviously this is a bigger issue than just trying change the meaning and intent of the founding fathers on one amendment.
“Right to bear arms.
The right of the citizens to bear arms… “
No mention of ‘keep’ or ‘possess’.
“KEEP, verb transitive preterit tense and participle passive kept. [Latin habeo, and capio.]
1. To hold; to retain in one’s power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.
2. To have in custody for security or preservation.“
“POSSESS’, verb transitive [Latin possessus, possideo, a compound of po, a Russian preposition, perhaps by, and sedeo, to sit; to sit in or on.
1. To have the just and legal title, ownership or property of a thing; to own; to hold the title of, as the rightful proprietor, or to hold both the title and the thing“
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Possess
I know you like thinking you’re the smartest one in the room, but your constant referral to a dictionary that didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was ratified is amusing.
The dictionary the Founders would have been familiar with is Samuel Johnson’s of 1773. The definitions are similar but if you want to stop looking like an idiot, try a little harder.
No one believed you last year on this topic why would anyone do so now?
Samuel Johnson?
Samuel Johnson was a Tory who supported the Crown.
“A glimpse of Franklin’s correspondence might lead one to conclude that he knew everyone in London and was friends with everyone worth knowing. But he did not consort often with literary people or with artists. He and Dr. Samuel Johnson met at least once, but Johnson, a Tory, had no desire to know Franklin better.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/benjaminfranklinandhisenemies.htm#:~:text=A%20glimpse%20of%20Franklin's%20correspondence,desire%20to%20know%20Franklin%20better.
You may choose to consider an English supporter of King George and London resident as the ultimate authority for American’s dictionary.
Somehow, I believe a native American citizen such as Dan’l Webster would be a more appropriate authority on the subject.
After all, he was a Federalist and a Republican:
“Daniel Webster (January 18, 1782 – October 24, 1852) was an American lawyer and statesman who represented New Hampshire and Massachusetts in the U.S. Congress and served as the 14th and 19th U.S. Secretary of State under Presidents William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, and Millard Fillmore. Webster was one of the most prominent American lawyers of the 19th century, arguing over 200 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in his career. During his life, Webster had been a member of the Federalist Party, the National Republican Party, and the Whig Party.“
Gee, they liked Mr. Webster better? You mean the man who wasn’t born when the Constitution was ratified? I like how “dictionary that didn’t exist in 1787” flies over your head.
WTF is wrong with you?
Rhetorical question.
Sorry, Webster was a five-year-old when the Constitutional Convention wrapped up, ratified a few years later.
I don’t want you to waste your time on a 90-paragraph dissertation about how I messed that up.
MINOr Miner49er. I have a RED HOT NEWS FLASH FOR YOU.
To bears arms, you first have to possess them?
That is strange. Daniel Webster was a Federalist and a Republican? Seems the Federalist Party went out of existence long before the Republican Party came into being. Ah, another note. The Author of Websters’ Dictionary was NOAH Webster.
Again, have a good day.
If you choose to believe that a resident of London who bowed to King George would better understand the meaning of ‘regulated’ in the United States of America, then American citizen Dan’l Webster, federalist and republican, that’s your lookout.
So why haven’t you yet graced us with the results of your opinion by posting Englishman Samuel Johnson’s definition of ‘regulated’?
Not that I’m all that interested in the opinion of a man who kissed the ring of the King of England.
“It’s a story they tell in the border country, where Massachusetts joins Vermont and New Hampshire.
Yes, Dan’l Webster’s dead—or, at least, they buried him. But every time there’s a thunder storm around Marshfield, they say you can hear his rolling voice in the hollows of the sky. And they say that if you go to his grave and speak loud and clear, “Dan’l Webster—Dan’l Webster!” the ground ‘ll begin to shiver and the trees begin to shake. And after a while you’ll hear a deep voice saying, “Neighbour, how stands the Union?” Then you better answer the Union stands as she stood, rock-bottomed and copper sheathed, one and indivisible, or he’s liable to rear right out of the ground.”
MINOR Miner49er. I could give a rat’s behind what “Samuel Johnson” a Brit, has to see about well regulated. Again, I suggest you READ (you can read?) Heller, McDonald and Bruen Decisions. They are the LAW OF THE LAND. Live with it!
How stands the Union? Right now, it is in deep serious trouble being undermined by you and your Leftist masters
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear
bear arms
1
: to carry or possess arms
possess
1
: to have and hold as property : OWN
That’s the best laugh that I’ve had in a few days, Liar69er; thank you!
Now you know why those of us who attended and were graduated from THE West Virginia University (BSJ ’81) called you losers the “Blundering Turds of Marshall Junior College.”
I’ll leave you with one of our cheers;
“Sock ’em! Bust ’em! That’s our custom! West — BY GOD — Virginia!”
“So why haven’t you yet graced us with the results of your opinion by posting Englishman Samuel Johnson’s definition of ‘regulated’?”
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=regulate
Like it or not, this was the most commonly used English dictionary of the day, on both sides of the pond.
Does no one read The Federalist Papers anymore?
Aaron,
MajorLiar doesn’t, because it proves what a lying liar of a Leftist/fascist propagandist he is. I used to think he was merely ignorant and illogical. Unfortunately, he has proven himself a blatant liar – he does this s**t on purpose. He is as stupid as dacian the demented, but even more venal and dishonest.
“Does no one read The Federalist Papers anymore?”
Here in the United States of America, the Governing Authority is vested in the constitution, not the federalist papers.
You folks can call me whatever names you want, the facts of law and history don’t change just because your delusional narrative requires “alternative facts”.
MINOR Miner49er, for your edification the Supreme Court refers to the Federalist Papers REPEATEDLY in its decisions.
I suggest you get an education before you make any more comments which will embarrass you.
MajorLiar,
Takes a lot of f**king gall for an ignorant, Leftist/fascist propagandist to talk about “alternative facts” . . . after he’s already cited a dictionary that didn’t even EXIST when the Constitution and 2A were written, used an OBVIOUS ad hominem argument to try to deflect from an actual dictionary that DID exist at the time of the writing, and claim it proves his point.
Trying to “argue” with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon . . . you strut around, knock over all the pieces, s**t all over the board, and then proudly claim “I won!!”. You are a pathetic, lying, uneducated @$$clown. If I didn’t have such contempt for your lies, I would pity your ignorance and stupidity. As it is, you’ve earned NEITHER my respect, OR my pity.
F**k off and expire, MajorLiar. You are of no use above the ground, you should be beneath it, inspiring the cabbages. And you aren’t even CLOSE to being as smart as you obviously think you are.
Go back to your circle jerk, you idiot Leftist/fascist liar.
Miner you are entitled to your opinion but while the constitution is the governing body of law the federalist papers are the underlying meaning behind the words. Your annual trolling on this topic hasn’t changed and Bruen makes it even more irrelevant than the last time you tried this tripe. The only way your version of the constitution will be accepted is through an actual insurrection which ironically would likely also be a fedsurrection.
“Go back to your circle jerk, you idiot Leftist/fascist liar.“
Truly entertaining, thank you so much for your inspired invective!
No Circle Jerk here, just putting together a few snacks and drinks for our viewing party tomorrow afternoon.
That’s 15:00 Eastern standard time, 22:00 for those of you in Moscow.
Be there or be square!
MajorLiar,
That was the BEST your pathetic @$$ could do????? What an embarrassing clown-fail!!! Child, either learn to understand, and actually level, insults, or avoid the fray. Besides, RumpRanger 49er, YOU’RE the f**cking commie, so if anyone is paying attention to Moscow time (or Beijing), it would be you. But y’all have fun at your your Hitlerjugend cricle jerk, with your fellow Leftist/fascists. We won’t be thinking about you.
You really are pathetic, MajorLiar – possibly even bathetic. Clever, witty, informed, or educated, you are not. And, since you have OBVIOUSLY abandoned actual thought and rationality, you are destined to a pathetic life of self-imposed ignorance. Sucks to be you, MajorLiar the RumpRanger.
MINOR Miner49er, Most of what you write is a “circle jerk”. So sorry.
But I am not surprised that you know what time it is in Moscow. Putin would be very proud of your Leftist-fascist posterior.
Cliff H summed up the article with a minimal of words and in fact one word……BULLSHIT!
The 2nd Amendment is what gives our Constitution its teeth. Without the 2nd Amendment, our Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Our Forefathers knew what real tyranny was because they had just revolted from tyranny. The typical American Citizen hasn’t got a clue of what real tyranny is and how tyranny is installed. We have a whole lot of ignorant SOBs who are trying to gut the 2nd Amendment. However, maybe they aren’t doing it out of ignorance, but out of purely evil intent.
The author clearly admits that citizens were expected to own, and to supply, their own personal weapons, when reporting for militia duty. Obviously, government cannot interfere with that citizen’s right to keep and bear his own personal arms. Therefore, the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, not some collective “people” that represent the state of Connecticut, or the borough of Manhattan, or Mercer County. The individual who purchases and maintains his arms has the right to keep and bear arms.
Legal and grammatical claptrap doesn’t change the intentions of the founding fathers.
Paul, you are correct, but the person who is a collectivist cannot see the word people and see a group of individuals. The mindset of the collectivist is anti-individual, this is especially true when it comes to the individual using force to protect him self and his interests because that leaves the possibility that that force could be used against the collective.
“The mindset of the collectivist is anti-individual,…”
As in, “It takes a village”, as another Fascist is so fond of saying.
I have to admit, it’s interesting watching the mental gyrations they put themselves through to come up with the result they want… 🙁
As a forced-to-be-‘people’ of the Demonerratic Republic of Connecticrap, with all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about! (this is a joke, your diag is correct)
Everytown for ‘gun safety’ uber alles!
Ok, I be done sarcastically venting. If you’d like to see some of the worst of the courts violating common sense, read the 2 VT supreme court affirmations of magazine capacity restriction “law”. The “Supremes” do that individual/person/people parsing and use everything to include the kitchen sink to validate unpersoning Citizens from their God-given Rights.
Truly breath taking…
How does the want of a horseshoe nail cause the loss of a kingdom?
I mean how does that illustrate how one bad event can lead to multiple? Maybe i jus dum
for the one of a horse shoe nail, the horse was lost
for the one of a horse, the rider was lost
for the one of a rider, the message was lost
for the one of a message, the kingdom was lost
all for the one of a horse shoe nail
For the want …
fair enough
I’ve heard both ways.
Okey doke. Never had come across that before thanks
Refers to Richard lll…
IF memory serves…
as it occasionally does.
And the author conveniently overlooks the multitude of OTHER historical documents which provide supporting evidence to the interpretation everyone but gun-haters knows is the correct one.
Nice try. Well, not really.
The draft is even STRONGER evidence that individuals have the right to own firearms than the final version. This author is full of hogwash.
The first half of the draft version is a clear, straightforward statement, unencumbered with limiting clauses to be misinterpreted.
The second half pertains only to allowing conscientious objectors the option to not join the militia, while also stating the importance of that militia. In a way, this endorses the First Amendment’s guarantee to practice the religion of one’s own choosing, even if it is pacifistic.
It’s quite amazing how well this all fits together.
I guess I don’t get it. He’s claiming Madison’s first draft demonstrates that the Founding Fathers didn’t see individual ownership of arms as a right. Yet, by his own pen, Madison suggests 3 things in his draft, which reads:
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.
So Madison puts, up front that
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Clearly, this is independent of being in a militia, because, well, this stands alone, as indicated by the semicolon, which may as well be a period.
Then, he continues:
a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country. Ok, this obviously was changed to “Free State”. Curious here is that earlier in the Constitution it calls on Congress to arm and discipline (make regular) the militia. Still not clear why this was needed, or effectively kept in the final version.
And finally, he ends with:
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
This is interesting in and of itself as it suggests that religious basis for desiring to be a non-combatant should not be held against them (eg, in a draft or similar). That probably would have changed Vietnam quite a bit….
In short, this guy owned himself. Putz. Except, he’s in LA, the land of fruits and nuts, so he probably will be heralded as a saint.
I’m giving a 50/50 shot that this person has never heard of The Federalist Papers or willingly ignores them.
Oh, now let’s be fair. He quotes Madison extensively in his article. How could one research Madison’s statements and not know about the Federalist Papers?
He knows all about the Federalist Papers and willingly ignores them.
^^^^^ THIS!!!! ^^^^
Well said, no name (and it applies, even more emphatically, to our resident lying liar, MajorLiar). These people KNOW they are lying, but are happy to do so, because it serves their propaganda purposes – and they believe (because most of THEM are) that the rest of us are too stupid to see through their nonsense. After all, “the end justifies the means”, dunnit????
Every time the argument arises over the wording of the 2nd Amendment I simply can’t help wondering if those trying to fight the meaning are simply limited in their literacy. The alternative would be that they are pushing a narrative (gasp!) and attempting to move their personal agenda forward (additional gasp!) rather than accepting the idea that the rights promised were actually promised.
The Bill of Rights was not written to create new rights, but rather to state formally rights which arose from Natural Law.The RKBA is a part of the natural right to life; since you have a right to live, you have a right to the means to protect your life. If anything, the 2A guarantees the citizen the right to own weapons suitable for militia service, e.g., the current small arms of the infantryman in our Armed Forces.
The most remarkable error in this piece is its utter disregard for context. The BOR is largely about individual rights, not group rights.
I don’t give a rat’s butt what this grammatically correct cretin sez. I ain’t giving up my gats!!!
hoosier daddy,
Correct, but incomplete (IMNSHO). The BoR was EXPLICITLY written to clarify that the Federal government was prohibited from infringing those rights, PERIOD. “Congress shall make NO LAW . . . “. Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it??? “The right of the people” seems pretty clear, too – it didn’t say “the right of the people to form a militia”, or the “right of the states to establish a militia” (both constructions were discussed and debated in the run-up to the Constitutional Convention).
The Leftist/fascists want more government control (they are assuming they are, and always will be, in control of the government, of course), and they “interpret” the Constitution to advance that goal – and they don’t care how much they have to lie, distort history, abuse the English language, they want what they want, and we all know “the end justifies the means”. There is literally NO lie they won’t tell to advance their goals.
if I remember correctly, this grammatical argument was already done on the federal court level. The judge in that decision came back with a simple statement. Which part of the 2A was the dependent clause and which is the independent clause. Guess which part of the 2A is the independent clause. This case was during the 90s and can’t remember where the case was argue at.
Who is this author’s audience because the Supreme Court did in fact perform an amazing analysis of every single word in the second amendment in DC v Heller. No where in the US constitution are weasel words or ambiguous words subject to reinterpretation. What we do have are edge cases where conduct may seem to cross the line from constitutional to no longer the conduct of a free person.
“Who is this author’s audience…”
Literal Fascists, who are brainwashed… 🙁
Old, stupid argument. The founders and everyone around them understood this to mean regular people owning guns. Journals, letters, papers, it’s all there in the context.
This is why you get stupid “people” who use phrases like “constitutional originalists” AS IF THERE WOULD BE ANY OTHER SANE WAY TO READ IT.
It’s too bad people don’t watch the entire final address to the nation that president Eisenhower gave. He said a great danger to the future of America, was all this federal money being given to the colleges/education system.
This system gets more federal money and then they stop teaching cursive writing in the classroom.
Another attempt by the left to twist the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The main purpose and goal of such writings is evident in the 3rd paragraph:
“The words on the page don’t guarantee citizens an individual right to gun ownership. They say nothing about a protected right to keep guns at home or in the street for self-defense.”
The language in the 2A is really very clear and easily understood if a person has just a smidgen of reading comprehension. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is all inclusive and it is not necessary to create a list of Where and When the people can or cannot keep and bear arms. Ownership is also a given in that a person cannot keep and bear that which they do not own. This is simply another lame attempt to discredit the author and the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. F Bergon may be keen on sentence construction but he is far short of a historical scholar in that if he was a student of history he would understand just WHY the 2nd Amendment was included in the first place. Those like F Bergon probably don’t understand WHY the 1st Amendment became to be.
This paragraph is the funniest part:
“The words on the page don’t guarantee citizens an individual right to gun ownership. They say nothing about a protected right to keep guns at home or in the street for self-defense.”
And then he has to add – in parenthesis, which makes it even more funny: (I’ll add here an originalist historical note to buttress this textualist reading: in colonial times, members of state militias were expected to supply their own weapons.)
Wait, can you explain the stuff in parentheses further?
No?
Oh, OK.
Pretending 1,000 years of British common law and tradition, plus Colonial laws and customs, are overruled by a sentence diagram? I’m sure this will impress the English faculty lounge. This clown doesn’t impress me. He tries to blow it off but he knows he cannot ignore it. And because he knows that part is crucial to the understanding of the 2A, and refuses to delve into it, he’s a liar. I have multiple books poring over the subject matter within his parentheses. What has been written about it, in total, can fill up a city library. That stuff is kinda important. This elitist prick doesn’t want readers to know.
I suffered through reading that idiotic article. He talked about his six grade English class (Sister Kathleen Mary) and proper grammar. I guess nothing changed in 200 years. Wish I knew what the common term was for idiot in the 1700s.
One other thing…every other article in the bill of rights is an individual right. Guess the authors just threw that one in with the other 9. They seemed pretty thorough on every thing else, surprised they missed this.
“As Sister Kathleen Mary might say: the Supreme Court has many powers, but alteration of English grammar isn’t one of them.”
F Bergon, “alteration of English grammar” is NOT one of your powers either!
“One other thing…every other article in the bill of rights is an individual right. Guess the authors just threw that one in with the other 9. They seemed pretty thorough on every thing else, surprised they missed this.”
That pretty much covers it, thank you… 🙂
I could never understand why they try to push the idea that The People in the 2A are different than The People in the rest of the Constitution/ BOR. Must be the repeat a lie enough times thing.
That’s the problem with “Constructionists'”, It’s not their job to amend, revise or “interpret” the words, it is their job to apply the intent of the Founders.. Funny, no one has a problem with:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”.
Well, except for establishment, they seem to conflate THAT with NO religious contact within govt affiliated entities PERIOD (NOT what it says) AND peaceful assembly to redress grievances which has somehow become “unless you are a Conservative” “but, anyone else can burn, loot, murder, rape and pillage without fear of repercussion”… Unfettered speech and press are still upheld (as long as you agree with the left)… Of course, it all comes down to what YOUR definition of is, is…
Stuff and nonsense. Long debunked, as noted several times above. He’s attempting to stir up some froth. Pfui.
Bullshit. Every right in the Bill of Rights is an individual one other than the 9th and 10th amendments, which are administrative in nature.
To accept this interpretation requires us to believe that the founding fathers inexplicably listed a collective right for states to form a militia in the middle of a document outlining rights enjoyed by individual citizens, while also using language that makes it easily confused with the other individual rights surrounding it.
Even if we determine that the purpose of the 2d Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to firearms was to supply armed men for the militia, under American legal construction the explanatory first clause is irrelevant. For example: if a law said “because the sky is purple it’s illegal to drive more than 50 miles an hour” the prohibition on exceeding 50 mph is still legally enforceable even if you can prove the sky isn’t purple.
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, June 4, 1788
Does anyone know of a founder who disputed Mason?
Is this a refutation, or illumination?
“To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in arms, makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.” George Washington, September 24, 1776
I would call it “illuminating” the need for TRAINING a Militia to prepare normal citizens for the possibility of being called upon in defense of home and country…
“I would call it “illuminating” the need for TRAINING a Militia….”
Agree. Seems the lack of organized, and trained militia is a weak point for 2A defenders. The anti-2A mob does sometimes claim that the National Guard is the heir of the title “Militia”. We are fortunate the anti-gun cartels don’t hammer us with the lack of organized militias as they were in 1774.
The anti-2A mob does sometimes claim that the National Guard is the heir of the title “Militia”.
THEY also overlook that pesky little comma that separates the two UNRELATED ideas in that “confusing” (at least to gun grabbers and the grammatically challenged) little sentence…
Sam,
I agree with you, in part, BUT (and isn’t there always a big “but”??) . . . the very nature of “the militia” means and requires ‘self-training’. I’ve trained extensively for firearms use, on my own time, and my own dime, including tactical training. Would it be nice to be able to get together with like-minded fellow citizens to “group train” in battle tactics, group maneuver, etc.? Oh HELL YEAH!!
Try it, and see how soon the FBI, DoJ, ATF, DEA, IRS, etc., etc., et ad nauseum cetera come knocking at your door (if they bother to knock). The one thing the Feebs and the DoJ are laser-focused on is squashing attempts by ordinary Americans to act in concert against the will of the Federal government.
I used to make light of even the possibility of “the Boogaloo”. I am becoming increasingly convinced that these idiots are going to FAFO. I wish I were wrong, but, as the Magic 8-Ball used to say, “All signs point to ‘Yes'”.
This is me, SMDH. I simply can’t understand how they can be that ignorant and blind . . . and then I read another dacian the demented or MajorLiar comment, and I’m forced to say, “Yeah. Yeah they can.”
It would be hard for them to advance that argument in the face of (i) their frequent argument that the National Guard IS “the militia”, and (ii) their aggressive efforts to squelch ANY effort to form a “people’s militia” – and, unfortunately, I don’t think that is accidental. The National Guard is subject to Federal “call up”, and once called up, is subject to Federal control. If they want to declare a national emergency, within the requirements of the Constitution, to “call up” the militia, they should do so (for something other than hurricane relief). They don’t, for a reason.
I tried to convince myself they were just ignorant and illogical; unfortunately, it turns out that they are that, but also venal and dishonest, and trying to hide their TRUE intent (albeit, ineptly).
MAXX,
Nah. You are making the mistake of assuming “good faith”. If you or I (or Sam) advanced the same arguments, in favor of something we find important, we’d be immediately mobbed and ‘cancelled’ for being “fascist, bigoted, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, cis-het, potential (or actual) rapists”, etc.
They are allowed to lie; we are not allowed to tell “our truth”. I can explain EXACTLY why “my truth” is “the” truth – but it requires some education, context, history, logic, and thought. All of which are anathema to the Leftist/fascists. They want what they want, and they don’t care how they get it.
MADDMAXX June 12, 2023 At 14:51
Your comment is awaiting moderation
MADDMAXX June 12, 2023 At 14:50
Your comment is awaiting moderation
we are not allowed to tell “our truth”.
I’m not telling “our truth”. I’m stating facts that SHOULD be everyone’s truth but “revisionists” conveniently don’t see it that way…
immediately mobbed and ‘cancelled’ for being “fascist, bigoted, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, cis-het, potential (or actual) rapists”, etc.
And that is what? Something new? I’ve been called worse for less… Fuck em, I don’t care what they call me and the only way they can “cancel” me is to kill me… To that I say bring it…
I stand corrected I guess fucking WordPress has the final say on “canceled” I’ve had a dozen fucking SPAM emails from three different posters on THIS forum and I get fucking MODERATED for speaking the TRUTH… Getting really old…
MAXX,
“I’m not telling “our truth”. I’m stating facts that SHOULD be everyone’s truth but “revisionists” conveniently don’t see ii tur way…”
They don’t see ANYTHING “our way”, and facts are only facts if they serve, or can be twisted to serve, their agenda. My reference to “our truth” was, of course, ironic. As you said, there are facts, objective and empirically knowable, and rational folks learn to deal with them. If they support your agenda, great. If not . . . perhaps you need to revisit your agenda. I have this silly, rational prejudice to elevate reality over agenda. Would that our “friends” on the Leftist/fascist front, would as well.
Like the old saying goes, “A cold drink and new thought would kill that boy stone dead.” Not that there is any risk of either MajorLiar OR dacian the demented recognizing a fact or having a thought. If they’re not ‘programmed’ for it, it doesn’t exist. I suppose, at some level, it would be fun to create, and inhabit, your own reality. I prefer to conform my agenda to the facts . . . but, then, I’m not a Leftist/fascist.
The federalists ultimately acknowledged the need for a BoR to get the constitution adopted. The federalist papers, etc. are a response to the antifederalist writings warning of federal tryanny and the need for a BoR to protect rights enjoyed by citizens and often specifically enumerated in state constitutions.
Absent a 2A in the BoR, the 9th amendment would be on point for the RTKBA.
And as the 10th amendment states…governments have “powers”.
E.g. A state does not have the “right” to form a militia…states have that power.
Anyone that argues the 2A is about protecting a state’s right to form a militia is seriously ignorant.
“Anyone that argues the 2A is about protecting a state’s right to form a militia is seriously ignorant.”
Not necessarily. In today’s American english, words have often been conflated. In this case, “powers” and “rights”. The power of governments to rule and regulate seems to be a “right” to do so. In discussing what the US Constitution actually does, it is very easy to think that the document “confers” rights, or withholds rights; one to the people, the other to government.
BTW, “ignorant” is one of those words whose meaning is warped. Today, “ignorant” is synonym for “hopelessly stupid”, when in fact “ignorant” simply means uninformed, such as, “I am ignorant of how the Tsetse Fly reproduces.”
Sam, it seems that the SUPREME COURT shot that argument down with Heller, McDonald and Bruen.
There is no mis-grammar in the writing of the 2nd amendment. Shall not be abridged. Mental gymnastics not needed.
Remember folks, the trolls here might not even be US Citizens. Might not even be adults. Will ignore all references to the Federalist Papers, or to any cogent argument that does not fit their mental template.
They will never admit when they’re wrong on something, which is an indicator that they are NOT bringing an attitude of debate and learning to these comments. They are coached on this, because their side thinks that admitting one’s mistakes will give strength to the opposing side.
It’s a disingenuous tactic.
So why are you feeding them? Why are you nourishing them and giving them strength?
If you’re going to respond to them, you need to force them to respond back on your points BEFORE you let them use their diversionary tactics to take you down yet another rabbit hole.
But they will never let you “win” a point, let alone an argument. And still; I think they are not even from a country that recognizes the right to bear arms in the first place. Arguing with them is pointless.
The final stage of any argument with “them” is that they will be forced to physically take our arms (rifles, pistols, ammunition) away. The counter-argument is that we will be forced to resist them with said arms.
The outcome is obvious.
You make a good case for completely ignoring them. However, I am quite certain there may well be amongst those reading these pages a number of people who are NOT well versed in the truth and history of these matters, and are here to learn and consider. MY responses to the like of the iggerunt one-less-than-fifty with his false pontifications is to attempt to debunk its prevarications AND to replace its drivel with solid truth. Thus I ignore most of the drivel emanating from the subject keyboard. But in this case a rational sounding but false narrative was put forth, and neded correcting as some of us have done. Hopefully those less or poorly informed on these issues will get a dose of accuracy.
But they will never let you “win” a point, let alone an argument
Funny, I shut Dacyboy and Minerva down ALL the time… Facts fuck them up til all they can do is run in a circle repeating the same bullshit lies over and over… You do you and don’t worry about the rest…
@LampOfDiogenes
As you note, the founders granted permission for the national government to call up the militia for federal use. In their letters and writings, the founders were concerned about the feds calling up militia in order to prevent one or more states from using militia to organize a revolt against tyranny. Or to use one state militia to fight another state militia. (Just as the founders wrestled with the potential of the Commerce Clause to essentially do away with the rest of the Constitution)
Sam,
That depends on which “Founder”, and which writings, you refer to. I thought it was pretty clear that, overall, the ACTUAL “Founders” would have agreed that, for example, the Confederacy had every right to secede from the Union (Jefferson, in the DoI being and obvious example). The whole point was, if we don’t like the government, if it is no longer serving us, we have the right to boot them out and start over. (The fact that the Confederacy was doing it for a stupid, immoral reason doesn’t mean they didn’t have the right; our Founders accepted and understood our inherent right to be stupid.)
Robert Heinlein posited something along the lines that most human sin and folly arose from a perverse desire to “help” our neighbors by making them do things “for their own good”. I don’t presume to know “what is best” for someone else, which is why it p**ses me off that idiots like MajorLiar presume to tell me what to do “for my own good”.
Even if I had the power, I wouldn’t force MajorLiar or dacian the demented to be rational – they have every right (and CLEARLY the ability!!) to be ingoranuses. And I have every right to mock them, mercilessly. And I try to exercise that right as often as I can.
“That depends on which “Founder”, and which writings, you refer to.”
My understanding is that there was little argument that government would not try to eviscerate State militias by intent to not equip, or sloth in equipping militias.
The founders, all of them, could not resolve the slavery issue in the time available, or with any assurance that the Articles of Confederation would remain in place, due to lack of ratification of the new constitution. Later reports (1860s) seem to indicate the SC could not guarantee a successful verdict to allow mere legislation to ban slavery, and the same for ruling that the southern States could not secede if the matter were before the SC (in the end, an amendment to the Constitution was ratified). Thus it seems a stretch that “the founders” would agree the southern States were correct to abandon the union.
Sam,
Wasn’t claiming the Founders would agree that the South was “correct” to secede, merely that they would agree they had the right. 600,000+ dead Americans gave their lives to prove that right (incorrectly, IMHO). I disagree, if your premise is that the Founders would contend the South had no RIGHT to secede (their reasons for doing so are their own problem). I can state, categorically, from my research/reading of his writings and philosophy, that T. Jefferson would have said (modern translation), “Sure, they have the right. Anyone has the right to be stupid.”
And I get the concept of opposing it – slavery is one of MANY heinous human institutions. And it has been practiced, at some level, by EVERY culture in history, at some point. I don’t think I have the right or ABILITY to tell another person what to think/do, and I commend that attitude to nations – but I get the desire to oppose the obvious and inherent evil of slavery, but, as Jordan Peterson says, “Clean up your own damn bedroom, first!”. Not a big fan of telling other people what to do; everyone is entitled to go to hell in their own way.
I think most (if not all) of our Founders would agree with me. I KNOW Tommy J. would.
I would say this joker’s very existence is the result of a chromosomal error.
I believe this is a case where retroactive abortion is called for.
The author contradicts his argument with this statement: “I’ll add here an originalist historical note to buttress this textualist reading: in colonial times, members of state militias were expected to supply their own weapons.”
By his own statement, he proves that the militia is NOT the national guard or the standing army. Those groups both have their weapons supplied by the government.
We, the People, are the militia, and we still supply our own weapons. And we train with them at our time and expense.
The draft wording of the 2nd Amendment makes it very clear that there always was an individual right to bear arms. Only an blind partisan would even suggest the people aren’t individuals. It’s so blatantly stupid that it contradicts reason to even debate.
I’d like a revisionist’s opinion on what “shall not be infringed” means, for example, “your anus, shall not be infringed”
The federalists ultimately acknowledged the need for a BoR to get the constitution adopted. The federalist papers, etc. are a response to the antifederalist writings warning of federal tryanny and the need for a BoR to protect rights enjoyed by citizens and often specifically enumerated in state constitutions.
Absent a 2A in the BoR, the 9th amendment would be on point for the RTKBA.
And as the 10th amendment states…governments have “powers”.
E.g. A state does not have the “right” to form a militia…states have that power.
Anyone that argues the 2A is about protecting a state’s right to form a militia is seriously ignorant.
The “preamble” to the Bill of Rights clearly states that the amendments are to prevent the government from abuse of its powers through “misconstruction” of the Articles of the Constitution, and that the Amendments are declaratory restrictions on government; the Second Amendment provides the People with the power of arms should the government go afoul of the Articles and declared restrictions, and it has nothing to do with self-defense other than the citizen’s self-defense of the Republic, Constitution and natural law. For some reason beyond me, people (and the Courts) do not take the preamble into consideration when arguing the Second Amendment, but will use words from the Declaration of Independence as if these are law to justify actions and travesties. The Founders foresaw the likelihood of abuse through misconstruction of the wording of the Constitution and, therefore, codified the protection of the People and their Rights though the inclusion of the Amendments, which are the declaratory statements of the People’s Rights and limits on government. These are not open to argument…and the SCOTUS made a big mistake by limiting their judgements to imply that self-defense is ALL that the Second Amendment protects. John F. Kennedy, the 35th President said, “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.” Kennedy was the last true Democrat president.
“…the Amendments are declaratory restrictions on government; the Second Amendment provides the People with the power of arms should the government go afoul of the Articles and declared restrictions,…”
Oh, my. You seem to think the populace has a natural, human and civil right to possessing weapons of war, to be used against an out of control (tyrannical) central committee.
oooommmm. I’m telling.
Eh, Sam, I think the Feebs already know we think we have that right . . . and that’s exactly what has their silk panties in a wad. They KNOW we have the right, AND the ability, and they are desperately trying to either (i) convince us we don’t have the right, and/or (ii) remove from us the means. And that’s when, as my dear daddy used to say, “we’ll get down to the nut cuttin'”. I think each of us has our own “trigger point”, and mine may be different from yours, but . . . we all have one. They keep pushing, they’re going to FAFO. I am amazed they are so stupid they don’t understand that, but, then . . . just look at MajorLiar and dacian the demented. THAT’S how stupid, uneducated, indoctrinated, and unthinking the Leftist/fascists can be. They are not homo sapiens; they abandoned “sapience” ages ago.
Sam, for your edification at one time or another most firearms have been used as “weapons of war”. (Smiling)
The text of the Second Amendment, like almost all written sentences can be made to say whatever the “contradictarian” wants it to say. Instead, read the letters, minutes of meeting and papers describing the arguments for and against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. First, to set the premise, James Madison warned, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” This is the Democrat objective, and they are doing very well at accomplishing that objective. Further, Ben Franklin believed and said, “I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make my blood boil. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,” and Alexander Hamilton reinforces that devotion to freedom, saying, “When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government. The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Interpreting that last bit of wisdom, “properly armed” means that the People should be equipped with arms suitable for defending freedom, liberty and the Constitution. Hamilton reinforces this statement referring to civilian arms by saying, “…that standing army can never be [threatening] to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” Think about the above and you may see the light. This is just a sampling of the thoughts of the wise men who pinned the Constitution and included Bill of Rights, and debunks the arguments of the anti-Second Amendment zealots, Period!
Those letters, minutes of meetings and papers can all be “interpreted” against the 2A as well if you really care to do it.
Stop playing this game. Defend language and the meaning of words.
The alternative is very simple; over a long enough period of time you will lose.
“Defend language and the meaning of words.”
As with writing history, aren’t the winners the ones who get to define (defend and impose) the meaning of words?
“The words on the page don’t guarantee citizens an individual right to gun ownership. They say nothing about a protected right to keep guns at home or in the street for self-defense.”
Sure they do so guarantee exactly that, and more. .
The aithor is just propagating standard numbnuts leftist honkarius gobbledygook, such as could be heard and seen in pre-Communist Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, etc.
I have no personal knowledge of the rhetoric used in Cuba, Venezuela, but would bet similar techniques were and are being used there.
Lets try an example – “the right of girls to wear little black party dresses shall not be infringed”. Does the foregoing imply that panties and earrings are not allowed? That said dresses cannot be hung in private closets?
Of course not. That not specifically forbidden is allowed in a general grant of permission.
And if anyone argued otherwise it would be obvious I had an AGENDA, and was up to NO GOOD!!!
Er, *they*, not “I”
Heh, little Freudian slip there.
As always, this is easily disproven by looking at the drafts of the 2A
“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.”
Bergon is probably the result of a grammatical error like dacian and Miner49. Mom thought the label said ‘come on’ when it really said ‘condom’.
I am a bit confused. Hopefully some of ya’ll here can help clarify it for me. The author states that in Madison’s draft he wrote “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.” Now to me, a draft is where you put down the main ideas you wish to capture in a paragraph, sentence, story, etc. If this is the case then Madison’s first line ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’. This to me seems to be a definitive statement. This is the main point. It seems to me that if the main idea of the founding fathers was ensuring a militia was available, the first statement would have been either ‘a well armed and regulated militia…’ or ‘no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms….’. It looks like the author actually contradicted himself.
“Madison’s first line ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’. This to me seems to be a definitive statement.”
It is good to look back at more of the debates over the Constitution itself.
An amendment to a document alters the base document. In the discussions of the amendments to the Constitution, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists had serious differences in the behavior of governments (often discussed here): Federalist generally took the position that since the Constitution was designed to control government, it was universally understood that whatever is not permitted is, by custom and logic, not permitted; Anti-Federalist were of the mind that government will always tend toward tyranny, and must be directly, and specifically prohibited from encroachment.
With the Second Amendment, the founders were working with the militia clauses of the base constitution. In those two clauses, the federal government was charged with equipping State militia. The worry was that the central committee could eliminate militias entirely, through refusal to actually provide the necessary equipment, leaving the States unable to challenge the standing army.
As a “well regulated Militia” would fail to exist if Congress refused to keep it “well regulated” (supplied with standard armament equal to the government), the States could not rely simply on government understanding that it did not have power/option/choice to fail to equip the militias.
Everything else regarding arms flows from RTKBA, not any other way round. I.E., 2A is about the people retaining the right to wage war against government that refuses to remain within its bounds.
Self-defense, hunting and sport are simply side benefits of the populace being armed equally with the nation’s standing army.
Sam.
“The worry was that the central committee could eliminate militias entirely, through refusal to actually provide the necessary equipment, leaving the States unable to challenge the standing army.”
Close, but no cigar. That was definitely “A” worry, but . . . as the military folks would say, “Amateurs study tactics and strategy; professionals study logistics.” They couldn’t AFFORD to equip the militia. There is fairly convincing evidence (which the anti-2A idiots hate to be reminded of) that the Founders – up to and including the Continental Congress – seriously looked at trying to equip the “standing arm” with something better than the “Brown Bess” or even the Kentucky Rifle. They evaluated (they had “committees”, even then, unfortunately) the Puckle Gun, there Girandoni Rifle, and at least a couple of other repeating rifles, LOVED them, and . . . didn’t have the money.
On a cynical level, the Founders “authorized” (acknowledged??) the militia for the most obvious of reasons – it already existed. Notwithstanding Bellesisles’ pathetic lies, many (most?) colonists were ALREADY armed – and most with firearms that were objectively equal to, and in many cases better than, the “Brown Bess”. Hey, England was a world superpower, at the time, and THEY couldn’t afford to equip their army with anything better than the “Brown Bess”.
No, I think they made a sensible decision, based on a recognition of reality, and their own situation . . . which, fortunately, happened to support individual liberty (which they were inclined toward, in the first place).
Well it seems the MARXIST/S O C I A L I S T/Communist have done their job well with the ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA, “PROFESSORS” and “TEACHERS”!!!!
Changing past “DEFINITIONS AND MEANINGS” to complete “OPPOSITE” for modern “DEFINITIONS”!!!
There are several “PAID OPERATIVES” on this site and “MINER” is one of the “PAID SUBJECT’s”!!!
My states constitution says I can have a gunm for the protection of me, my family, my property and for hunting.
The End
@LampOfDiogenes
“As you said, there are facts, objective and empirically knowable, and rational folks learn to deal with them.”
Therein lies the root of your difficulties.
Rational life, empirical knowledge, facts, all that is subject to how one perceives their own reality. In a properly functioning world, 2 2 can be anything a person wants; deal with it, old bean.
Sam,
And that’s the cynic’s approach (and GOD KNOWS, I am nothing if not a cynic!!), and I mostly “vibe” with it, but . . . therein lies the difference. A truly RATIONAL person is aware of when reality conflicts with “their truth”. Self-delusion is NOT reason. I have been compelled to change/adapt my views and theories, any number of times (sometimes, me being the flawed human I am, it took a 2 x 4 upside the head to get me there), to adapt to actual facts.
You are entitled to “believe” that 2 + 2 = 5, all day long. If you apply that “logic” to building a bridge, or even building a hut to huddle in? Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.
I am PAINFULLY aware of the “modern view”, that we all “have our own truths” – and I find it laughably stupid. That it exists means I have to acknowledge it, be aware of it, and deal with it (FAR too often), but . . . I ain’t the smartest guy in the room, nor did I ever claim to be, but even I can discern when “my truth” does not comport with reality. And reality always wins.
Besides, it would be personally embarrassing to me to find myself in the company of such idiots as MajorLiar and dacian the demented by refusing to acknowledge reality. I would be forced to commit honorable seppuku.
Seems I got that one past you.
@LampOfDiogenes
Rest easy. There really ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou. No organization, no logistics, no training, no agreed upon strategy/tactics, no leadership, no cohesion, no commo plan. A mob or three of shooters does not a revolution make.
Civil War 1.0 was not a random bunch of raggedy assed cadets with guns. The revolt required an organized army, and outside help (a wide war on the continent, which we too often ignore). Civil War 2.0 also required a full up army for the secessionists.
This line of reasoning has always amused me.
A real civil war in this country, today, is one that US government cannot win and it requires less than 1% of the population to be “on board”.
Why fight the government when a few quick infrastructure sabotage attacks turn all the major US cities into a hellscape in a week flat and the governments at all levels are overwhelmed as 200 million “civilized people” start to inexorably eat each other?
Just shut off the water treatment facilities. You don’t even need to physically show up to fuck them up so badly that there’s no fresh water for a city like, say, Chicago, for a year.
Have fun cleaning that up. We, quite literally, don’t have enough body bags. Oh, oops, power’s down too. Too bad, so sad.
And, were one so inclined to cause such a thing, nothing can be done to stop this once it occurs and the methods to do it are as numerous as dandelions in spring. Once in motion, nothing will be done because nothing can be done. This is a fire that burns until it runs out of fuel and it’s got a fuckload of people to incinerate along the way.
Sometimes it seems to me like the only person out of the entire officer corps who learned a fucking thing from the GWoT was Mattis when he said “Doctrine is the last refuges of the unimaginative”.
He recognized that war evolves. Always has, always will. You don’t want that coming here. Especially with literally millions of people who’ve come back from the GWoT and know what works against our SOPs. They’re not handcuffed by superior officers any more either. But .gov is.
Sure, there’s no shortage of retards on Twitter who think they’ll be having an easy time of it dropping 120s on the suburbs and chillin in the FOB laughing about it. Their families will learn the error of such thinking by ending up on the wrong end of a sharp knife, a thick rope (to make it nice and slow) or perhaps a quart of gasoline. Literally.
No offense, but you need to stop thinking “It can’t happen” or “It won’t happen”. You sound like many other major Western governments during the 20th century who said the same thing right before they got their shit pushed in, hard. This is stereotypical American thinking, like gravity doesn’t apply here because “wE’rE eXcePtiOnAl!”.
No, we’re not and all you need is a push in the wrong direction under the current circumstances and you’ll find out what Americans act like under circumstances literally no one has ever seen on this continent; famine.
It can happen here, pushed far enough it will and you to a near certainty cannot imagine the horrors it will entail if it does.
‘Fraid I disagree, completely.
A revolt must have a goal beyond general destruction. With no leadership, there is no identifiable goal. With no goal other than destruction, any outcome can look like victory.
In the middle east, the US was fighting against an enemy that really had only the goal to make intruders go away. There was no thought given by the locals to completely replace a government.
In the US, if the goal of revolution would be to replace an existing govt, what is the intended action to follow the imagined victory over tyranny? It is tradition since 1945 for the US to win a war, and lose the peace. Who will set the priorities for the new government? Simply replace the old politicians with new politicians? What is to prevent the new from screwing up as much as the old? Who will restore all the presumed damage? What to do when the old services are unwilling (or unable) to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure? How will a counter revolution be prevented? As with those who think shooting up critical resources will settle everything, what do the victorious revolutionists intend with “will not comply” corps of the defeated?
Without the above questions (and more) answered, the boogie cannot really succeed. Be assured, the revolutions in the 20th century had plans for takeover, who would be rewarded.
Revolution isn’t about producing damage, but winning the peace. No leadership, no organization, no commo plan, no strategy, no leadership, no direction, totally independent warlords. Talking insurgent warfare, not grand combat on the plains of Meggido.
The conduct of war (and tactics, and weapons) do evolve, but principles of conquest and rule don’t.
Who Will Win America’s Next Civil War? hint – its not the left wing.
You’re shifting the goalposts here Sam. Now for there to be a civil war we have to have some sort of post-war plan in advance to restore the Constitution and shit? LOL, that’s not how people work.
I’m addressing the “There really ain’t gonna be no boogie” statement you’re making.
I didn’t address what comes after that at all in what I said.
What part of anything I’ve ever said or referenced makes you think my comments, in any regard whatsoever, have anything to do with “Who will set the priorities for the new government?”?
See, the difference here is that you assume there would be a plan rather than a reactionary lashing out. I don’t grant that assumption, and I never have. Which is why I’ve said here for years that you do not want this.
And that’s before foreign powers start to meddle in the situation and do things like arm all sides. Yeah, all, not both.
Not to be a dick about it, but what part of “This is a fire that burns until it runs out of fuel and it’s got a fuckload of people to incinerate along the way.” was unclear?
Sam.
And I respectfully disagree with you.
At least as to “mechanism”, strych is totally right – one person, properly determined, could shut this country down in a few days, and he/she could do it on their own. No “organization”, no “plan”, no “strategy”, just “burn it down”. I could CRIPPLE the entire US power grid with strategic attacks (that one person could easily pull off) on four to five distribution centers. It ain’t rocket surgery.
Power goes out, and society collapses in a week, maybe less.
What happens in the aftermath? As strych pointed out, idjits like MajorLiar and dacian the demented will die screaming. Rational people (which, strangely, seem to tend conservative/libertarian, mirabile dictu) will survive in FAR higher percentages (sure, a lot of good, rational people would die – which is why I would never consider such a plan, but . . . I suppose if you are psycopathic/sociopathic enough, you would be able to figure it out for yourself).
The surviving idjits would be (i) relatively few in number, (ii) mostly unarmed, and (iii) without a CLUE “what to do next”. That’s not a war, that’s just mopping up.
Sure, a mass attack on DC, to hang all the politicians and bureaucrats (objectively a good thing) would require all the organization, planning, and strategy to pull off . . . and the DoJ and the “Alphabet Agencies” would be on you like white on rice, before you had your first meeting.
A SMART nihilist would do it the smart way, “burn it down”, and pick up the pieces. strych is correct; one person, or at most a small “cell” of three or four, could bring this country to its knees in a week. The aftermath is a foregone conclusion. The process would be UGLY, which is why no one has done it . . . yet.
If you think it requires some complicated “planning, organization, and strategy”, you are busy fighting the last war; this one’s going to happen organically, and the means to stop it, or at least make it substantially more difficult, will take years and cost trillions to implement.
Just because there is a box, that doesn’t mean you have to stay inside it.
To all the NRA defenders, I hold the same position on all the other 2A defense organizations: failing to directly attack NFA and GCA. All the organizations are constantly nibbling the edges (mostly to the benefit of the orgs, and manufacturers of firearms and parts). Each of the orgs is carving out exceptions to gun control, leaving gun control largely intact, and highly effective at its core. Nibbling is nothing more than a delaying tactic, born of conviction that taking on NFA and GCA risks losing, thus enshrining gun control forever.
Note: I belong to none of the discussed organizations, because they all leave NFA and GCA intact.
“To all the NRA defenders …”
Who? There’s nobody here but us chickens.
no name,
No, we have a reliable cadre of NRA supporters who show up, on a regular basis, to extol the virtues of the NRA. Hell, I was a member, for YEARS (more than I care to think about), and they did do a commendable job . . . of education and training. They have never ONCE been more than “OK” at lobbying or lawfare. And then there’s the whole “pay for Wayne’s suits, his sidepiece, and give all his buddies jobs” thing.
But NEVER believe that the NRA and its sycophants aren’t fully represented at this forum.
Lamp, do you also disparage attorneys who appear in court wearing $1000 suits and drive Porches, Teslars etc?
The NRA like every other organization has its faults. But I see no problem in paying a man what I consider he is worth in running an organization such as the NRA. LaPierre is not perfect but he’s a stalwart in the pro gun arena.
Sam, sorry, but HOIRSE PUCKY. I have never seen you make a disparaging remark about any other pro gun organization other than the NRA. If you can provide proof to the contrary.
“Sam, sorry, but HOIRSE PUCKY. I have never seen you make a disparaging remark about any other pro gun organization other than the NRA.”
Here’s one I have repeated: “All the organizations defending the Second Amendment are mostly benefiting manufacturers of guns and equipment. Rather than nibble at the edges, making carve-outs for one item or another, they should be attacking the sources: NFA and GCA.”
In addition of benefiting mostly the gun industry, the latest injunctions granted are being used by the 2A defense organizations to charge money to be a member of organizations for the limited amount of time an injunction will last (until actual trial).
None of the 2A orgs are actually defending the Second Amendment; simply munching at the margins. It is the gun industry that should be funding the margin munchers. The name brand 2A orgs should admit they fear losing a challenge to eliminate NFA and DCA.
Sam, you mean you FINALLY have come out with a “condemnation” of all pro gun organizations?
I’ll take issue with that statement. Gun manufacturers surely benefit from the 2nd Amendment movement and organizations. But to think that the members of these organizations don’t benefit, it ludicrious.
The ONLY case that has a injunction which only benefits members is the Brace case.
In order for a case to be brought to court, the plaintiff has to present a case where his/her rights were infringed upon and that infringement MUST be stated and what law or practice violated that right.
I guess you figure that we who own guns should just sit back and violate these laws and come what may?
This is one they really, really don’t want to let go even though their argument makes no sense and even if it did you’d have to ask why the Democrat Presidents have consistently reaffirmed the militia code in the U.S.C. to essentially cover everyone via either compulsion or voluntary service other than high ranking politicians and people already covered by current military service.
Even granting the liberal reading of the 2A, under US Federal Law we’re all in the militia by default or via willing service in times of trouble. Since we’re all members of the militia and the preferred antis reading says it’s an individual right for militia members then all one need to is either be of the ages listed in the Militia Code or say “I would volunteer for service under circumstances required” and voila!, it’s an individual right for most Americans and any other Americans who want it.
So, even under their own argument they can fuck right off with what they actually want to do.
Hilarious.
I kind of enjoy these debates because they’re so obviously wrong.
The 2nd Amendment consists of two Clauses. The Anti-Gun Crowd always attempt to make the second Clause dependent upon what they call the Prefatory Clause. They’re wrong and here’s why.
What does the first Clause do? It defines the Militia’s role in being necessary to the Security of a Free State. It also states that they be Well Regulated, which at that time meant Well Trained. The first Clause though, doesn’t define what the Militia is to be trained with. That is entirely defined by the second Clause. Why? Because without the Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms, there can be No Militia, as the Militia IS the People.
“The Anti-Gun Crowd always attempt to make the second Clause dependent upon what they call the Prefatory Clause.”
Not sure when things went off the rails, but regardless of the author of the above full article being educated by The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, there once was a “thing” called “dependent clause” and “independent clause”. Recognizing the two was simple: a “dependent clause” made no sense without the “independent clause; the “independent clause” was complete, without reference to a “dependent”. Thus, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” makes no sense. While, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is complete within itself, makes sense, and depends on no other words, or clause.
Sam,
An EXCELLENT summation of the proper analysis of the grammar of the 2A!!
There are dozens of details that further support your conclusion, but . . . your explanation “works” for an average person. *chef’s kiss*
“An EXCELLENT summation of the proper analysis of the grammar of the 2A!!”
Blind squirrel moment.
WORDS FOR THOUGHTS …
THAT’S WHY PROTECT OUR USA CONSTITUTION , ALL OF IT .. AMEN
So the 2nd Amendment doesn’t really say what it really says. Ok……Move along, nothing to see here.
The 2nd Amendment is what gives our Constitution its teeth. Without the 2nd Amendment, our Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Our Forefathers knew what real tyranny was because they had just revolted from tyranny. The typical American Citizen hasn’t got a clue of what real tyranny is and how tyranny is installed. We have a whole lot of ignorant SOBs who are trying to gut the 2nd Amendment. However, maybe they aren’t doing it out of ignorance, but out of purely evil intent.
“I’m addressing the “There really ain’t gonna be no boogie” statement you’re making.”
I don’t doubt there will be random murder and destruction, but it won’t amount to more than armed vandalism, not a civil war (“the” boogaloo).
We are well beyond what the founders would have tolerated, yet, here we are, waiting, complaining, boo-hooing. With 400mil guns in the wild, and 100mil legal gun owners, nothing happened (and the political situation demonstrates growing divide and intolerance.
However, let’s agree that some important community/national infrastructure is damaged or destroyed. Do we expect the Dims to simply agree to abandon positions of power, and turn it all over to a disparate gang of “patriots”? To vacate the positions of power currently held by those destroying the soul of the nation? To simply run away in fear? What happens after the “boogaloo” is just as important as what happens during; it’s all part of the whole. Who do the frightened communists surrender to? How is it done? What is the simple measure of victory for the “good guys”? How do we know when “it” is done? If those questions are not part of preparing for the “boogie”, we become just armed hooligans….and that is not moving the goalposts, but highlighting the importance of goals.
@ Lamp.
“Wasn’t claiming the Founders would agree that the South was “correct” to secede, merely that they would agree they had the right.”
Understood. I was remarking that the founders as a whole might not have agreed there was a right to secede; maybe not even a majority.
Have not read every document from the founders from 1791 to 1861, but also have not seen anything reporting on what the founders thought about joining the union, then withdrawing. Such writings would be extremely interesting to read.
Sam,
There are such writings out there (OTHER than T. Jeff’s “whenever any government” language in the DoI), and they ARE interesting. I’ll have to compile the links, and find a way to get them to you. Like my dear daddy used to say, “I may be wrong, but I am NOT uncertain!”.
Don’t know if there is a way to get me an email address to get them to you (it will take me a few days to pull them together), but it would be . . . difficult, at best, to drop a list in the middle of a comment section. I think there is ample evidence that “the Founders” bought T. Jeff’s rationale, and most shared it. Again, I might be wrong, but I am not uncertain.
“I may be wrong, but I am NOT uncertain!”.
I maybe wrong, but I am always Right.
[email protected]
Pls reply here when you send; thanx.
@Lamp
“At least as to “mechanism”, strych is totally right – one person, properly determined, could shut this country down in a few days, and he/she could do it on their own.”
Agree. However, such is nothing more than violent vandalism; not revolution. “Striking a blow for freedom” does not usher in “freedom”. “The boogaloo” is not random acts of violence, but a general revolt, a civil war.
As I asked 9, do we really expect government to cower before random acts of violence committed by armed gangs? Do we really believe the Dims will surrender their positions in the face of uncoordinated attacks on infrastructure? Surrender to whom? If not total capitulation, do we expect Dims to promise to mend their ways, and restore the nation to some sort of status that pleases us?
What is the point of random, uncoordinated, goaless, gratuitous, violence? After these acts, what does victory look like? How do we measure success? How do we assure “victory” will last? When one doesn’t know where they are going, any road is as good as another. “Without vision, the people perish.” If the point of destroying infrastructure is our own amusement, then we, and our opponents, are merely mirror images; neither with virtue.
@Walter E Beverly III
You seem to be missing the point. Nibbling around the edges gains some victories, and a victory is a victory. However….end the NFA and GCA, then it doesn’t matter which toy, or feature, or part, or purchase you are trying to individually “save”.
Atomization of defense of the Second Amendment plays into the hands of the 2A organizations, and the gun industry (and into the hands of the anti-gunners), yet does nothing to actually defeat the root causes of all the suits.
What has “Bruen” wrought, but endless lawfare? The anti-gunners are happy to use their billionaire money to keep lawful gun owners spinning their wheels for micro-victories; individual contributors to pro-gun organizations cannot long compete (even NRA lacks funding to fight all the marginal battles).
Essentially, pro-gun orgs are attempting to treat the symptoms, not root causes. Eliminate the root, and the plot dies; all the fringe things 2A orgs are fighting go away, all at once. The pro-gun orgs will be happy to drain the bank accounts of donors, while keeping their orgs alive to fight the edges of gun control.
Sam, no offense but I did not miss your point at all. I pointed out to you that each of these organizations have to have a PLAINTIFF with a SPECIFIC complaint of a violation of his/her individual rights. You seem to have missed this point entirely. In Federal Courts, you are required to have “standing”. Without that standing your complaint gets dismissed.
I agree, that there is what you call “endless warfare.” But that is the system we live under, whether you or I like it or not.
So what is your “solution”? Open warfare? (shaking my head)
“In Federal Courts, you are required to have “standing”. ”
Of course. NRA suddenly found “standing” when the other orgs were successfully being included in the recent preliminary injunctions in 5th Circuit, if only for a short while. The same claim of damage to members provides “standing” to attack NFA and GCA; those two pieces of legislation damage members of the pro-2A organizations.
War as a solution? Who is it always downplaying war, proclaiming “There ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou”?
Cut the head off the snake (through lawsuits), and freedom flows more freely. Stop being proud of plucking yet one more “grain of sand” from the beach.
Sam, that is right. The Federal Courts require STANDING. That fact remains the NRA still was able to join the case. It seems you think that the NRA should file ever case that comes to their attention. Like most organizations, the NRA’s resources are LIMITED.
IT seems that the NRA and it’s affiliates are “trying to cut off the head of the snake” by filing law suits and joining other suits already in progress.
I am damn proud of being a Patron Life Member of the NRA. If you want to ab anti-NRA that is your problem. Frankly I have no problem with Mr LaPiere being paid what the Board thinks he is worth. If you have a “better candidate” then why don’t you rejoin the NRA, become a Board member and nominate your buddy.
@Walter E Beverly III
“IT seems that the NRA and it’s affiliates are “trying to cut off the head of the snake” by filing law suits and joining other suits already in progress.”
By plucking off the snake’s scales? Nibbling all around a deadly viper?
Take the head, and the scales are irrelevant. So, if NRA and other 2A orgs do not have the money to challenge every infringement, all the time, why are they not concentrating their power on the snake’s head?
BTW, it is a purposeful tactic to exhaust your enemey’s capabilities, by conning them into fighting everywhere, all the time.
Hey there, dear friends! I’m currently grappling with a massive report that is quickly approaching its deadline, and I’m feeling quite overwhelmed. I’m in urgent need of a strategy or assistance to make the writing process faster and more manageable. If you have any tips or know of helpful resources, please lend me a hand.
One day I came across a service that offers pre-written articles on specific topics. Intrigued, I decided to investigate further and eventually used their services. I wrote an article on a political topic – you can check it out here. I appreciated their flexibility and willingness to make changes during the writing process. They were able to adapt and make the necessary changes.