Grammatically speaking.

[2A_Tom]

Very good read.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[Mgderf]

Great read.

 

[Dosproduction]

Yes that was a great idea and im making a copy putting it on my phone to carry around in arguments I get in every day with libtards.

 

[edporch]

My only disagreement is that the term "well regulated" has changed in meaning over the last 200+ years.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was created, "well regulated" meant "...the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "

This info from:

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

Bookmarked to read later.

 

[Roadie]

Classic read. Great author.

 

[eric001]

What a pity that in all their supposed legal interpretations of the Constitution, the judges of our court system--up to and including the Supreme Court--fail to look at the actual grammatical meanings within the very Constitution they purport to respect and enforce. If the SCOTUS had bothered to look into such expert analysis of the language used in the our 2A, I would think many, many cases that set precedent (incorrectly limiting 2A rights in particular) would have been decided much differently.

 

[Roadie]

Read the Dissenting opinions on the Heller case.. talk about seriously misinterpreting the 2nd

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What a pity that in all their supposed legal interpretations of the Constitution, the judges of our court system--up to and including the Supreme Court--fail to look at the actual grammatical meanings within the very Constitution they purport to respect and enforce. If the SCOTUS had bothered to look into such expert analysis of the language used in the our 2A, I would think many, many cases that set precedent (incorrectly limiting 2A rights in particular) would have been decided much differently.

That's because it's not so much what it was intended to say, to mean...it's about what you can make it mean.

 

[eric001]

That's because it's not so much what it was intended to say, to mean...it's about what you can make it mean.

I would definitely expect that to be true of career politicians... I guess I've been more idealistic than realistic in my expectations of judges though. I unrealistically thought...maybe hoped...that judges would want to do what is right, not whatever they can to justify their own agenda. Sadly, the more I learn about our legal system and its history, the more i realize that I had it pretty much backwards.

 

[edporch]

I would definitely expect that to be true of career politicians... I guess I've been more idealistic than realistic in my expectations of judges though. I unrealistically thought...maybe hoped...that judges would want to do what is right, not whatever they can to justify their own agenda. Sadly, the more I learn about our legal system and its history, the more i realize that I had it pretty much backwards.

The problem is, both sides of the political spectrum refuse to nominate, or are unable to get confirmed, judges that rule using originalism and original intent as their only guide.
Reaching a conclusion any other way will inject a political agenda into the ruling.

A perfect Supreme Court Justice for me would be somebody who looking back over their record, there's no indication of what their personal political leanings were.
They simply called it straight.

Yet the closest to this I ever saw in my lifetime was nominee for the supreme Court Robert Bork.
And they shot him down because he was an originalist who ruled with reliance on original intent as his guide.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would definitely expect that to be true of career politicians... I guess I've been more idealistic than realistic in my expectations of judges though. I unrealistically thought...maybe hoped...that judges would want to do what is right, not whatever they can to justify their own agenda. Sadly, the more I learn about our legal system and its history, the more i realize that I had it pretty much backwards.

Yeah, this isn't a new phenomena. There have been new tools created and discovered as the years roll by. We now have unlimited interpretation of the commerce clause, incorporation, fundamental rights, the power to force people into action to be a law abiding citizen, etc. yet the difference between congress shall enact no law means separation of church and state and shall not be infringed does not include CCW/LTCH laws nor automatic weapons. When the citizens demand constitutional-tom-foolery to occur, we ought not be surprised when we have tom-fools to oblige them.

 

[eric001]

Given the above comments and explanations...and my (un?)healthy mistrust of our legal system in general... I just have to think that it has become a broken system. And I honestly have not a single clue as to what could be done, or by whom, or even how. Any realistic ideas anyone???

 

[IUprof]

Great read! I especially liked this part:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Statement of purpose does not define a right.

The Supreme Court has long held that a statement of purpose in the First Amendment does not define the First Amendment. The statement of purpose of the Second Amendment does not define it either.

NAACP v. Alabama | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[cbhausen]

I don't remember exactly when I first gave serious thought to the meaning of the Second Amendment; probably back in my college days and in conjunction with some high-profile (aren't they all?) gun control debate. But I know I have always interpreted "well-regulated" to mean in proper working order. My interpretation of the word "Militia" at that time is not so easily recalled. Back then I probably interpreted the word to represent a citizen army, a narrow interpretation indeed. Back then the "Militia" was everyone. And it still is.

 

[Roadie]

My only disagreement is that the term "well regulated" has changed in meaning over the last 200+ years.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was created, "well regulated" meant "...the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "

This info from:

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Even IF Well Regulated meant Government control they still take it out of context. It was the MILITIA that was to be Well Regulated, not the People, not the Arms.

 

[2A_Tom]

Bump.

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks for the link. I've read it before, and enjoyed reading it again.

 

[2A_Tom]

There are a lot of new members and since iI had pulled it up for my own ammunition locker I bumped it for those that may not have read it yet.