(05-04-2021 12:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 12:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I guess. You seem to be the ONLY one (even the constitutional law experts that I've read) who seem to feel that this is straightforward. Even the Supreme Court justices who have addressed this issue would not seem to agree with this assessment.

Im not the one dancing an Irish jig over 14 very plain words. 12 of them one syllable.

Many of the words arent really even in play.

I mean, there really isnt any issue over the words 'the', 'of', 'the', 'to', 'and', 'shall', 'not', or 'be'.

Im not the one with a hangup over the really tough words to decipher -- like 'right', 'people', 'keep', 'bear', 'arms', and 'infringed'.

Perhaps if I really want to run a progressive really confused I should liberally sprinkle the words 'right', 'people', and 'infringed' in that thing I want to muddy up because those words seem to have an ability to be insta-obfuscated to them.

Or maybe I'll toss in a prefatory clause to make them think there is another verb in there.

Which of those words seem unclear to you, and thoroughly hard to glean a meaning from?

The wording of the amendment is confusing overall WRT to "well-regulated militia".

Again... most experts seem to struggle with this so I feel like I am reasonable company and maybe I'm not a complete idiot because it doesn't seem clear to me.

So you see any verb that modifies or acts on 'militia'? I guess providing a rationale in a sentence is tough for some. Is there anything conferred on a militia there? Is there anything commanding that only militia should be armed? I'm sorry, it isnt that tough --- it is only tough when one wants to obfuscate for whatever reason they want to obfuscate or run from very simple words and very simple word construction. Coupled with the comments on specifically arming 'the people', it is very plain.

And actually many experts dont struggle with this. The words of the founding fathers provide a pretty clear picture.

What portions of those quotes are tough for you? In short, in the founder's viewpoint the common people should be armed.

Pretty tricky and devious things those prefatory clauses can be....

I feel like I have been pretty clear that the rationale for using the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is confusing as it stands next the the subsequent phrase. What is the connection between the two? Do we simply ignore the first part of the amendment (why did they put it there at all then...)?

When I read it (not a constitutional lawyer, not a lawyer, not an English major, not a grammar hobbyist, etc.) I get the following:

Well-regulated militias are very important. Therefore we shouldn't restrict access to guns for our citizens.

The link from last night that I posted pointed out that militias were the focus here and the thought of a unopposed standing army was not attractive to the FFs. Just the author's opinion. In the absence of private citizen militias I understand why there is controversy about the amendment and why very few people find this issue to be straightforward.

Can you point to another 'collective right' anywhere in the Constitution?

Can you point to another supposed 'conditional' right anywhere in the Constitution?

Can you point to any words that make the prefatory clause a conditional clause? Can you point to any words that make the prefatory clause subsume the active grant?