(05-03-2021 04:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 04:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The argument that you are making, then, is that the militia phrase is completely irrelevant. I find is hard to believe that the FF threw that in for no reason.

Some people with better legal minds than me (can you imagine?) apparently feel the same way...

What relevance do you find in the language? I see zero actions dealing with 'militia'. To be bluntly honest, the FF did know the difference between 'people' and 'militia', I would assume.

And I think most cogent people know the difference between the groupings of 'the people' and 'people in a militia'.

To put that into your point of view, our Founding Fathers had zero idea that there is a difference between 'people' and 'militia'; and that they had zero concept of the difference between the groups of 'the people' and 'the people in a militia.'

I've actually read much of the base works of the FF, and they dont seem as illiterate as that.

In the idea of following common English (which the FF were exceptionally well versed in, imo), the 'militia' phrase is put there to offer a rationale for a 'rigt of the people' --- i.e. 'if you like the scent of flowers, plant roses.'

In your view, the FF are illiterate to the extent that they dont know the differences between 'militia' and 'people' and the entire group could not form that solitary sentence as a group of a 100+ well versed, well educated persons, and each and every one of them were so illiterate that they did not know the difference between the words 'people' and 'militia' in that one spot in the Constitution.

I would hazard a guess that you are well educated, but, I would hazard another guess that none of us here are as well educated as anyone in that group in 1787. I think I know the difference between 'people' and 'militia', and am bright enough to make sure that the proper word is used in a sentence that would be cornerstone of the new country; I also suspect that you know that difference as well. Correct?

I dont buy that that group of erudite and learned men all fell to the same gross misunderstanding of English. But, at its core, that is the argument that you are making here.

Please do tell, where is the explicit grant of right and to whom is it directed?

Do you think the FF as group are so illiterate as to simply forget they use a different word for another group that they intended? That is what the side that you are promulgating has to default to, in all honesty.

Why not just say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

To me it speaks to a well-regulated militia being an essential aspect of the amendment.

What verb or verb phrase extends to the militia?

A rationale is 'an essential aspect' of an amendment? Seriously?

Do we see similar rationale constructs for other amendments? Or is that unique in the 2nd?

I dont remember any other rationale -- but also remember that the Constitution was the absolute first to put power directly in the hands of the populace --- a major radical ideal for the time.

And while they were armed in the colonies, they were armed *only* with the blessing of the King and at his prerogative.

The idea of just giving direct representation to the citizenry was wildly radical at the time. However, the idea of actually enabling in the law, and not just in the law but as a cornerstone of that rule of law, the idea that the act of being armed is not at the prerogative of a higher authority but deeply embedded as an individual right -- was nothing short of blockbuster.

Needless to say, having a rationale there seems somewhat common sense. Given what the rationale says and is trying to buttress even helps solidify the notion of this horrendously new and radical idea of not only saying that someone else has final say to your own mode of self protection both as an individual and for the community, but that you have an ingrained *right* to do so --- fairly epochal.

And interestingly enough, that notion of a right to self-defense, and to community self-defense as a right embodied as a right to keep and bear arms is *still* pretty epochal in nature. By my count there are only 3 countries with that right as a constitutional right.....