Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Definitions (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Show me the verb in the prefatory (10+ / 0-)

    clause. Not the participle. The verb.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:08:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Can't make it disappear. (0+ / 0-)

      But you can waste my time with dumb questions.

      Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

      by Inland on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:13:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A phrase without a verb doesn't do (9+ / 0-)

        anything. The prefatory clause invokes no limits, states no boundaries, does nothing other than provide cause and justification.

        The only legally binding portion of the 2nd has the verb form: shall not be infringed. What shall not be infringed? The right of the people. Not the right of a state, or of a militia.

        There is copious contemporary writing by the Framers that support this. There is little to none in support of your revisionism.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 08:53:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um. That's trying to make it disappear. (0+ / 0-)

          Of course, you don't make the rules on whether a sentence "does something".

          The indisputable fact is that it means something, and was intended to mean something, and all you're doing is playing schoolmarm and telling them that you won't read it until someone follows your rules.

          As to the "rights of the people to bear arms", it's clear that the states decided what those rights were when it organized its well regulated militias.  Like all the bill of rights, it didn't apply to states at all, which were left to created militias to battle the people who the states denied gun rights, like slaves and indians and rebels.

          So it's a clear choice: one can either pretend half the second amendment doesn't exist and the other half is a suicide pact whereby states are forced to allow rebels and slaves and indains to arm themselves, or one can be honest.

          Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

          by Inland on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:14:20 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  See below (4+ / 0-)

            In its explanatory capacity, it clarifies the Constitutional meaning of "Arms".

            Not in a way that you'd like though - since the reasoning of Miller would make the AWB unconstitutional.

            You, on the other hand, are trying to make the operative clause, the one with legally binding language, disappear in any form recognizable to the words on the page.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:20:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. (0+ / 0-)

              What you call "operative" and "binding" and "meaning" is just your conclusion, and the conclusion requires that you make half the amendment disappear.  I'm pretty sure that if I could just ignore half the words of any sentence, I could change it's meaning too.

              Like the diarist, you're concerned about something irrelevant.  He's wrapped up in individual or collective right, and others are wrapped up in what an "arm" is.  But the right to bear arms was decided by the states in creating their well regulated militia.  It's the states that decided that rebels wouldn't be in the militia; it's the states that decided that the militia would be deployed against the militia.  All the seocnd amendment did was prevent interference with the states ability to have an unfair fight.

              But you turn it on its head, whereby the Aryan Nation has a consitutional right to arm itself agaisnt Idaho, and that the federal courts guaratee that right.  

              Nobody ever bombed a pro-life office.

              by Inland on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:37:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site