2nd amendent left ambiguous for a reason...

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: projectvxn
The second amendment is not "ambiguous".

It's just that we all forgot how the English language works. For the following, I am using the term "independent clause" with regard to sentence structure and not the legal definition of a clause.

"A well-regulated militia(sentence fragment), being necessary to the security of a free state(sentence fragment)", is an independent clause and it can stand alone. No part of this independent clause creates or imposes a condition on the people.

..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is also an independent clause. It also does not impose any restrictions on the people and the right to arms except to say that such a right shall not be infringed.

It's not ambiguous. Just take an English class.

I don't see any ambiguity either. But, yet I understand things a bit differently.

Here is what that statement is saying, in "alternative words":

BECAUSE OF A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

See?

The two parts of the statement go together. It is typical practice in well written English, to exclude the "BECAUSE OF" and "THEREFORE" terms, and write it as it appears in the constitution.

BUT...the first part does not stand on it's own, it needs to be completed by the second part, to finish the thought.

Then you do not understand the many uses of a comma.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Yes, because setting off a nuke on your own populace will definitely keep you in power. Nuclear powers around the globe would look on in horror and do nothing....

Not.

We think using WMD on your own people sounds nuts, yet we accuse Syria of doing exactly that, with chemical weapons. If Syria had nukes, they'd nuke'm instead. At least, that's what the propaganda leads us to believe.

Who knows?

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: joemoe
People who argue for Gun control are not against guns, they just want guns in the hands of a few elites and their cronies that control the Government. After all, it takes people with guns to take away guns from those who are disenfranchised.

You don't need a gun to kill people.

In this modern age, they are so many more efficient ways, that the gun is really outmoded.

The gun is a particular type of tool, however, that facilitates a particular type of killing.

It's a tool of "anger" killing, because you deliberately aim it at the person or people you're angry at, and "see yourself" putting them down, feeling good that they got what they deserved etc...it carries a certain "mental correspondence" that clearly identifies both the killer and the victims in that act of rage, like a movie drama.

LOL no. "Anger" killing is using your bare hands and not stopping until you've knocked out/killed or are knocked out/killed.

I've never seen a story about a father walking in on his child being raped/molested by a home invader, and deciding to walk back to the other room and grabbing his gun. No, he's likely charging the guy and beating him to a pulp in rage.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
..

Then you do not understand the many uses of a comma.

It's not just the comma.

You see that key word "being" ?

They could have used "is" instead,

"A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Then that first part of the statement would itself be complete.

The test is whether you can replace the comma "," with a period ".", and still get the same syntax and grammar.

In this case, you can't. This is not a complete statement;

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

That's incomplete, and the period "." there must be replaced by a comma ",", after which the statement needs something else to complete it. The "being" word is what determines that the second clause depends on the first.

In other words, the people have the right to keep and bear arms "BECAUSE" the state needs to have a militia.

It's not because the people need arms for their own individual self-protection.

It's for a group protection, not personal protection.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

Yes, because setting off a nuke on your own populace will definitely keep you in power. Nuclear powers around the globe would look on in horror and do nothing....

Not.

We think using WMD on your own people sounds nuts, yet we accuse Syria of doing exactly that, with chemical weapons. If Syria had nukes, they'd nuke'm instead. At least, that's what the propaganda leads us to believe.

Who knows?

You didn't say WMDs, you specifically said nukes. And I doubt that Syria would use them if it had them. No one wants to lord over ruins.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
..

Then you do not understand the many uses of a comma.

It's not just the comma.

You see that key word "being" ?

They could have used "is" instead,

A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Then that first part of the statement would itself be complete.

The test is whether you can replace the comma "," with a period ".", and still get the same syntax and grammar.

In this case, you can't. This is not a complete statement;

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

That's incomplete, and the period "." there must be replaced by a comma ",", after which the statement needs something else to complete it. The "being" word is what determines that the second clause depends on the first.

In other words, the people have the right to keep and bear arms "BECAUSE" the state needs to have a militia.

It's not because the people need arms for their own individual self-protection.

It's for a group protection, not personal protection.

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

A well-regulated (well trained & equipped) militia (citizen militias) being necessary to the security of a free state. Security of the peoples freedom against the state. In their eyes no state was a free state when the state could impose its will upon the people at the point of a gun.

Therefore the right of The People shall not be infringed on by the state.

When a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the People have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense- to fight the government. - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers.

The people have a right to self-defense, and in this instance they must exercise it to fight the government.

The ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. - James Madison, The Federalist Papers.

The father of the Bill of rights.

You can nitpick grammar and syntax and how vague the 2nd might be, but when you read the writings of the men that created this nation you can see what they intended.

The Second Amendment, and its meaning, and why it is so vague.

The reason it is written there, is very clear in history and one simply reads that, and looks at what all happened in history and the reason is very clear.
Back when the constitution was written, the US was a much different place. There was still large wild spots, and a need for many of the houses to have and keep firearms, for their own protection, especially away from the larger cities. Wildlife and the natives already present would cause a few problems for those traveling west. And the US did not initially keep a standing army. IN the event of war, it would be call up the local population to come and assist, and then it would be for the individual to show up with their own firearms in hand, to do their duty and then after their term or no longer needed they go home, back to their lives.
The Bill of Rights was written in 1789, and in effect in 1791. And those who wrote it saw first hand what happened when the people were left at the mercy of the government. Many of them fought to overthrow that form of government. And they saw the mischief of many of the European governments, and an English monarch wanting to have more power than was legally allowed. How many of the royal families wanted more of an autocratic rule, often at the expense of the people.

In fact, the founding fathers did not trust a standing military, rather preferring for militias made up of part time civilian-soldiers. There was only one standing regiment and that was to guard the western frontier. And the army would be brought up when needed and then disbanded. It was not until the war of 1812, combined with the American Indian wars, that the idea of having regular units would be seeded, cemented in the Mexican-American war and the American Civil War.
But until the Civil War, the standing army was always kept small. Though after the Civil war, the Army was increased in numbers, with conscription being the main way to bolster those forces. And they were not disbanded, after the war, but kept on, having a professional military force, but kept at a smaller level. It would not be until World War I, that the US military became the complex that it is today.

There are limits in all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, as enshrined in the constitution. There is only so far that one can go, before it crosses from being protected to being not protected. And there are court cases that show such time and time again. And perhaps there needs to be some limits on the Second Amendment as well, that the courts will have to decide. There is always a balancing act between the mandates of government and what they must do in accordance to the constitution and the rights of the people where it does not go and violate their rights.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
There are limits in all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, as enshrined in the constitution. There is only so far that one can go, before it crosses from being protected to being not protected. And there are court cases that show such time and time again. And perhaps there needs to be some limits on the Second Amendment as well, that the courts will have to decide. There is always a balancing act between the mandates of government and what they must do in accordance to the constitution and the rights of the people where it does not go and violate their rights.

Trying to impose any type of bans or sanctions by judicial fiat is likely to spark a civil war.

The courts cannot be expected to resolve this issue. The courts have ruled on contentious issues like abortion and civil unions, and the minds of the People are still polarized. It will take an Amendment to allow closure, something that will require the input of our citizens instead of unelected judges.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Which is precisely why, without ambiguity, those in favor of doing away with the 2nd, or sharply curtailing it, do not want it to go before the people.

I feel rather safe in predicting precisely how that would turn out.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
You should be thankful that the justices are not elected, cause if they are, then they can be swayed, in ways that would show that justice is not blind, but weighted unfairly towards one side or the other.

Unpopular court cases are often spun in a ways to paint a very unfavorable light, ignoring the benefits of such. So while yes people are sore about say the Roe V. Wade, and only focus on the abortion. And what is even sadder, is that no one realizes how much they benefit from the decision, how they are actually affected by it.

The courts will not resolve this issue, however, they will define it, usually using the constitution as a guideline. And even some of the most conservative justices in the past have stated that even they have thought the interpretation of the 2nd amendment was a bit too liberal. But there was no case before them so they did not have to rule on such.

There are limits to rights. If you look at the first amendment, there are very much limits on each and everyone of them. There is a limit to speech, a limit to what all religion can do, a limit to the press, assemble, and petition. Those right have limitations on them.

The second amendment is no different, there are limits to it.

Now I am not saying ban or sanctions, but limit. And what harm could there be? What real harm could there be in such? As that is what a court would want to know when any challenges are made..

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: Breakthestreak

This just baffles my mind. How can you argue that having personal firearms is giving you means to fight the armed forces of the government?
How is this a reasonable postion? What are you going to shoot at with your AR-15? Planes, helis, drones, tanks? Who are you going to shoot at, who's going to be shooting at you? Your fellow countrymen? Really?
It's going to get so bad that the militairy is going to shoot civilians? And in that scenario you argue you stand a chance?Honestly, paint us a scenario where this is going to happen? Are they going to miss deliberately with their hellfire missle and park their AH-64, climb out and get close for you to take a shot?

Time to start cracking down on mental health issues, bout time

So your stance is “can’t win, don’t try”

Regardless of your argument, that IS the intention of the constitution

a reply to: Breakthestreak

I'm sure it was the intention, over 200 years ago.

Things have changed