21 Apr 2021 1:16 pm
Yeah sure. However that doesnt change the FACT there is NO SUCH preferatory clause on Speech press petittion or assembly. That means they MEANT for it to be seen differently. I think Scalia was wrong but that is neither here nor there it is the LAW NOWConsRule » 21 Apr 2021, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑ You mean similar to the way liberals want to expand every clause and amendment...except the 2nd.
Now...a brief English lesson related to the wording of the 2nd;
The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as an "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—is a prefatory clause
Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller ruling, thought it made no sense to treat the prefatory clause as the only reason for the right to keep and bear arms rather than one of the reasons. He felt such treatment nullified the operative clause and, therefore, we could not make the right contingent on militia service.
And you really should look at the definition of militia; all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. Also, according to the expert from CNN;
=19.2px"Well=19.2px-=19.2pxregulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well=19.2px-=19.2pxorganized, well=19.2px-=19.2pxarmed, =19.2pxwell=19.2px-=19.2pxdisciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in =19.2pxthat it's n=19.2pxot about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was =19.2pxin an effective shape to fight."=19.2pxIn other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather =19.2pxthat the militia was prepared to do its du=19.2pxty.
https://constitutioncenter.org/images/u ... Aug_11.pdf
THe bottom line is that doesnt make the right to bear arms UNLIMITED. Even the freedoms cited WITHOUT such preferatory laws which you seem to be saying mean NOTHING, though it was put in for SOME reason. even rights like SPEECH are not unlimited. Not only can I be put IN PRISON for simply talking you into giving me your money for a chrity then using it for buying blue suede shoes, but for MOST of the life of the freedom of speech you could be put in PRISON for what you say the government didnt like. Until the sixties we had a seditious libel law. That is a law that basically says you can be prosecuted for saying something the government says damages them. Eugene Debs went to prison for a TEN YEAR TERM for simply giving an anti war speech
Rights are not absolute and like MOST liberals I know I dont want your guns. Keep all the guns you want. I just want to see some common sense restrictions that will make the HUGE PRICE we pay for this right in BLOOD taken down a few notches. Most of the civilized countries in the world have such restrictions and are strll pretty free. Meanwhile whle we see our gun deaths at around 30.000 a year most countreis number them in the dozents or at most hundreds