Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, I suggest you learn what a prefatory clause is.
Well that wouldn't be very well regulated then would it?It is up to the militia, not the government.
A prefatory clause announces a purpose or reason for the operative clause (right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed), but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.You suggest away you! Perhaps you can save me the time by pointing to where in the definition it says a preface has nothing to do with the thing you're about to talk about.
Sounds like you're still not getting that well-regulated meant something different then than the government shoving its nose into thingsand setting up regulations and restrictions.Well that wouldn't be very well regulated then would it?
A prefatory clause announces a purpose or reason for the operative clause (right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed), but does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
Sounds like you're still not getting that well-regulated meant something different then than the government shoving its nose into thingsand setting up regulations and restrictions.
It is in reference, as an example of a reason for the right expressed in the operative clause. I never said anything to the contrary. I disagreed with your implication that the right only had to do with a militia. The militia is with regard to the right to keep and bear arms, no the other way around like you tried to say.Thanks for saving me the trouble! So you now agree that the prefatory clause is in reference to the operative clause? That the peoples right to bear arms is in regards to a well regulated militia?
"regulations" =/= "well-regulated". they're not the same word, and not the same thing. Nice try though. Try going to texts from the 1700s and 1800s and looking at at their use of "Well-regulated". It doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean. An example of the use: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."Could it be that "regulated" had more than one meaning? Maybe you could help me out by clarifying what the founders meant here in Article I section 8
"[The Congress shall have the power]To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
And just what in heavens name did they mean by regulation here in Article III section 2
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
It is in reference, as an example of a reason for the right expressed in the operative clause. I never said anything to the contrary. I disagreed with your implication that the right only had to do with a militia. The militia is with regard to the right to keep and bear arms, no the other way around like you tried to say.
"regulations" =/= "well-regulated". they're not the same word, and not the same thing.
Nice try though. Try going to texts from the 1700s and 1800s and looking at at their use of "Well-regulated". It doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean. An example of the use: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
I disagreed with what you said and what you impliedNext time you should disagree with the things I say instead of the things you think I'm implying. Just a suggestion
The prefatory clause is with regard to the right to bear arms. Not the other way around.And how do you mean it's not the other way around. They are in regards to each other.
You do, in fact, to see the common meaning and usage of the word at the time.Really? You can't see how they might relate? At all?
I don't think I have to go back to the 1700's.
For example, if I say my sleep cycle is pretty well regulated, you might ask a question about circadian rhythms, not whether congress has passed a law. If I say marriage is well regulated on the other hand...
See? Same words, different context.
Maybe the Articles of Confederation can help. What do you suppose they meant by disciplined here...?
"but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
I disagreed with what you said and what you implied
The prefatory clause is with regard to the right to bear arms. Not the other way around.
You do, in fact, to see the common meaning and usage of the word at the time.
Again, well regulated means in good working order.Since you seem to be deliberately ignoring that and continuing on off on wild tangents I think we are done here.
That's ludicrous. Perhaps back in the Founders' day, that made some sense. Today, though, Grandpappy's squirrel rifle doesn't mean squat against a Cruise missile, any sort of armor division, airstrikes... oh hell, pretty much any part of the modern military.
What an armed populace can do, though, is hold off (or at least slow down) an invader long enough for the real military to arrive.
Since there's a thread on this topic, let's discuss the Second Amendment.
We should start by making one thing clear: your Constitutional rights are inalienable in that they can't be randomly taken away by the government.
Your constitutional rights apply equally to everyone, regardless of who they are or what they've done. I have the same amount of free speech that you have.
However, your rights are not absolute in that we voluntarily surrender a portion of our rights to live in a civilized society. We have free speech, but that doesn't enable someone to take to print dragging my good name through the mud with lies. We have the freedom of religion, but we must temper that right with respect and deference to the many other faith traditions in this country.
If we all had the absolute right to free speech in this country, we'd have anarchy - the laws of the jungle, in which anyone could say anything without concerns over decorum or respect for others.
The Second Amendment works the same way. Setting reasonable limits or regulations on the ownership of guns - expanded background checks, limits on the situations and locations in which a gun can be carried - are not an abridgment of the Second Amendment.
It's a testament to how extreme a certain side of this issue (not all gun owners, but a portion of them) has gotten in this country that we practically cannot have a mature discussion on gun rights without someone immediately claiming that the other side is trying to "take mah guns!"
My thread, my rules:
If you think I'm unreasonable, tell me how I'm being unreasonable on this issue. Let's have a discussion; not a shouting match. No accusing others of "trying to take away guns" unless they specifically say, "I want to ban guns in this country". I can understand that this is an emotional issue for some, but try to keep emotions and knee-jerk reactions out of it.
Ringo
Since there's a thread on this topic, let's discuss the Second Amendment.
We should start by making one thing clear: your Constitutional rights are inalienable in that they can't be randomly taken away by the government.
You grossly underestimate the potential and power of an armed populace.
Has Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan taught nothing?
Call them wins if you like, I'd say at least two were losses and they were all largely guerilla warfare and insurgencies.
No, I really don't.
I didn't call them anything, and I'll thank you not to imply that I did. I did say, though, an armed populace may be able to hold off or delay an invasion until the real military arrives.
But for a group of armed Americans to take on the massed might of the US military? Forget about it.
You can probably at least half the military numbers in the event of anything close to what we're talking about. They're human beings at the end of the day and I really doubt they're just going to go to war against citizens when there's very likely an obvious an legitimate reason for insurrection.
Either way, I still think the cons far outweigh the pros.
They were also political victories. The invading forces withdrew because the people back home weren't willing to support it anymore. A tyrannical government is not going to care about public opinion.You grossly underestimate the potential and power of an armed populace.
Has Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan taught nothing?
Call them wins if you like, I'd say at least two were losses and they were all largely guerilla warfare and insurgencies.
Got that far and stopped reading, our constitutional rights are violated all the time. Take a read of the patriot act, there goes your fourth amendment rights right there.
Here's a nice little graphic showing just how the government is more than happy to butcher our "inalienable" rights.
Today's military, no.
But consider what it would take to get to the tyrannical government the American people rise up against. By that point, the military arm of that government would be hard and cold and would do exactly as they're told.
Or else, it might not go so well for thier families and associates.
totally anti-gun zealots
It's a gun-grab, because they can't come right out and say, "okay, we're taking away your guns."
No, instead it's a trickle down effect. One piece of legislation may be a federal tax hike imposed of ammunition sales that make purchasing bullets cost prohibitive for many. The next may be a law saying you can only purchase 20 rounds of ammo per month. Well, that's all fine and good for home defense, but what if you like to bone up on your marksmanship by going to the range? You can easily blow through a box of bullets in one session at the range. The next law may disarm law-abiding citizens who only own a firearm for home defense, but enacting laws that force gun owners to practically disassemble their firearm and place each individual component in a separate lock box. Oh, and no bullets in the magazine, either. That renders your firearm completely useless in a home invasion scenario.
Common sense gun control should be just that - common sense. You don't give guns to felons or known rapists and physical abusers. You don't give guns to those diagnosed as criminally insane. You don't have small children and sleep with a loaded gun under the pillow and just hope you've scared them against touching it enough times to make sure they don't accidentally shoot themselves.
It doesn't make sense to tell people they can't carry conceal to church. Will you need your gun in church? One would hope not, but shootings do happen at churches.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?