(05-03-2021 08:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 08:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 07:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 06:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Further 93, you and lad opine that Militia *must* have an active bearing on the grant of the right.

Honestly, instead of the 'it must be wrong because it is then an unqualified grant', point me to *any* construction in the words themselves that seemingly make it qualified contingent on the group the 'militia'?

No offense, but I havent seen *any* construction like that from you two -- Ive only seen 'it cant be'.

I am arguing strictly English construction, the fact the FF almost absolutely knew the difference between a 'militia' and 'the people', and that there is absolutely zero verbs or verb phrases that act on anything in the prefatory clause.

With all due respect, the only thing I am seeing from your all's quarter is a statement of 'well it cant be', with zero evidence of that in the slightest.

I'm not sure. Perhaps the vernacular was different back then so it's hard for us to assign intent? It sounds as if the various other writings of the FF has been carefully studied so that may provide some level of a guide to this.

I actually have read a great deal of their works. And no, verbs werent left off by them much at all.

Quote:What I see (and I'm just a dumb SE who never got too enthralled by the study of advanced grammar) is that without the militia part you are left with "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That tells me (if you interpret it that way) that the FF were not interested in placing ANY restrictions on arms. I guess what you are saying (tell me if I'm getting this wrong) is that of course they wanted "reasonable restrictions" and they just planned to have people review the other writing that they had done in that era to provide more of a roadmap to the 2nd amendment?

Look at their writings on militias in particular. They were fully aware of the raw power that an armed populace has --- and how efficient they were. Many of them fought in such militias --- in terms of law enforcement, community defense (i.e. unfriendly Indians and others), and especially in the power of the common arm of the day to fight the British (the then day superpower) to a standstill. Literally common people utilizing their own firearms in the above. Against the most advanced military of the day, and it ended up being a success. All with the most common, most basic arms which were available to pretty much everyone at the time.

You say 'ignore' the prefatory language. I dont. Use it as a rationale to what is driving their thought process.

When you actually use the prefatory language as language it evolves into something like this:

This is their mindset, from my reading:

"Militias are good, they are healthy (we should know, we won our independence, we fought off Indian raids, and ran packs of outlaws down with such militias) -- accordingly the right of the people to bear common arms (which a militia does, mind you) shall not be infringed."

And before you laugh too much, think of what small groups of Vietnamese shop owners did in South Central for three days during the Rodney King riots -- they engaged in community protection *just like what is described above*. All during the time that the LAPD could not protect them, their property, nor their families since the LAPD was stretched way too thin.

The FFs absolutely believed that a populace that is armed as such is wonderful for the common good in many levels and scopes -- it is good for personal self-defense, *and* it is good for defense of community when the state actors cannot get there.

The FFs *wanted* a populace that was armed. They wanted a populace that was armed with their own weapons -- the populace could use such normal, common weapons for self-defense, and defense of community. They did not want their populace to be without arms, for numerous reasons.

Some went even further than that, mind you. Jefferson even called the armed populace the counterweight to oppression. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Kind of blunt, and straightforward --- takes the 'defense of the community' up a notch as well.

And this again falls hand in hand with the varying levels of upside that the FFs saw in having an armed populace.

Again 'the functions of a militia are a good thing, they can rapidly do community protection, and in time of great need, they can fight oppression --- accordingly lets make sure the right of the people to be armed with what they can normally use and carry is not infringed.'

Again the structure is rationale --> wanted result. But the FFs did not vest the right with the militia, nor with members of the militia. They specifically and explicitly vested that right with 'the people'. That is no accident at all, nor is it 'ambiguous', nor is it some weird thing that a hundred or so of probably the most educated and erudite people of all time made a vernacular slip or a grammar error all in one sentence.

So with that rationale, any restrictions requiring someone show they properly know how to maintain and handle a gun should unquestionably be Constitutional, right?

No more nor no less than it should be Constitutional to require a citizen pass a basic civics test to vote I would surmise.

Is it clear cut? No. But I have yet to find another interpretation that fits so well with the words themselves, the historical facts, comparison with other rights in the BOR, and the explicit writings of the authors themselves. And, given that weight, I would say Focault's pendulum comes into play for me at that point....

I dont believe 100 of the most briliant and erudite people made a vernacular or grammar error.

I dont believe that a collective right exists where there is no similar collective right anywhere else in the document.

I dont believe that a collective right sits at the beginning of what one author of that section says is the greatest reservation of rights to people to that point in time.

I do believe the writings of Jefferson and Mason whom specifically describe the 2nd amendment as a reservation of rights of the highest order to individuals.