Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Definitions (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The point is ... (0+ / 0-)

    that for some reason they chose to put a prefatory clause in one, and only one, amendment.  Pretending that this has absolutely no meaning is not reasonable.

    Put another way, I think the burden of proof rests with those who claim those words have no effect, not on those who think as I do that they serve the same purpose a nominative absolute generally does in a sentence (i.e. to further explain the meaning of the main clause.)

    With all this manure around, there must be a pony in here somewhere. - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

    by jrooth on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 09:59:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm pretending nothing. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, oldpunk, PavePusher

      Was it an explicit choice - and specifically for the reasons you claim - to add the prefatory clause?

      Point me to the supporting materials please - those materials written by the Framers, nothing modern.

      Thank you in advance.

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

      by Jaime Frontero on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:12:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh ... (0+ / 0-)

        So your theory is the prefatory clause is an accident?  Words just landed in the bill of rights without anyone choosing to put them there?

        With all this manure around, there must be a pony in here somewhere. - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

        by jrooth on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:21:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please point me to the materials... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          meagert, oldpunk, PavePusher

          ...which support your point of view.

          The point is that for some reason they chose to put a prefatory clause in one, and only one, amendment.  Pretending that this has absolutely no meaning is not reasonable.

          You have postulated a positive - that is, that something is true.

          I have offered other explanations - which fit with those Constitutional materials already discussed on this thread, and require no further support.

          It's an interesting discussion, but I don't see how it goes any further without your providing something contemporaneous to the framing of the Constitution which supports your point of view.

          It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

          by Jaime Frontero on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:40:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  US v Miller (0+ / 0-)

            In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

            With all this manure around, there must be a pony in here somewhere. - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

            by jrooth on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 10:55:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That fits with Robobagpiper's... (6+ / 0-)

              ...deconstruction of those prefatory words (not really a clause, since the version of the amendment ratified by the states was without the clause-enabling comma) as defining what are 'arms', to some degree.

              I disagree with it, knowing the value that was placed on sawed-off shotguns in Vietnam - but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

              Your point however, was that the prefatory 'clause' was purposefully placed in that single amendment, and that those who placed it there did so in support of your overall disagreement with (somewhat) recent SCOTUS decisions.

              As I said, I await supporting materials contemporaneous with the Framing that support your point.

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:11:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we're both well aware ... (0+ / 0-)

                that no contemporaneous notes of the discussions surrounding writing this amendment exist.  So your argument amounts to insisting on something you know to be impossible.

                Sorry, but you don't get a default judgement in favor of your ungrammatical interpretation simply by demanding the impossible.  The use of the nominative absolute in 17th century English was nothing unusual and paralleled the function of the ablative absolute in Latin, with which the framers were also well familiar.

                I'm curious though ... where did you derive your understanding of my alleged "overall disagreement with (somewhat) recent SCOTUS decisions?"  I don't see where I expressed that.  Maybe you can tell me what relevant disagreement I have with recent SCOTUS rulings?

                With all this manure around, there must be a pony in here somewhere. - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

                by jrooth on Fri Jan 21, 2011 at 11:37:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site