An empty statement with nothing behind it.
View attachment 67424964
Would you like a link to that source?
I'm sorry that you appear to not have any basic reading skills or logic comprehension. Remedial English classes can be helpful if you seek improvement.
You might have a point if the words that make up the 2nd were different than what they clearly are.
You don’t need to have a colored world view to read a few clearly written words and understand what they mean.
This is why we have a Supreme Court that ruled correctly on the abortion issue.....that it is a state's rights matter. They are supposed to ONLY interpret the constitution and not read in th elight of modern-day society and do a "Carnac" and decide what the framers would say TODAY. That is not said or implied anywhere in the constitution.
I guess I need to dumb it down for the lefties here
I tried but it does appear that some have severe difficulties with using logic and common sense. Sometimes, I feel like I am teaching kindergarteners here. <sigh>
Yo7 don’t know how to copy the URL and email it to yourself, then open it up on a different device?
That is incorrect. The opening statement in the 2nd Amendment is a dependant clause. In grammar school we were taught that a dependant clause needs a subject and a verb. The subject is “Militia,” and the verb is “being,” the gerund form of “to be.” A gerund is a verb acting as a noun, usually accomplished by adding "ing", that describes the action happening. Suching as "driving", "thinking" or "running". It becomes a thing. Which can now become the subject, direct object, indirect object, etc. But it doesn't stop being a verb, but the role it plays in a sentence shifts from describing the action to being a focal point. So why the gerund? Nouns in Latin are broken down into 5 cases. One of those being the ablative. Latin gerund forms are the equivalent of English verbs ending in "ing". Latin unlike English has a separate spelling for the ablative case. Latin is maddeningly concise. It has no articles. A noun in the ablative case and a gerund alone in Latin create the equivalent of an entire clause in English. The primary author of the 2nd Amendment was James Madison. A very learned man in the subjects mathematics, geography and modern and classical languages He was considered as being exceptionally proficient in Latin. So Madison's use of an elegant flourish to introduce the 2nd Amendment based on the Latin of writers such as Cicero, whom I'm sure he he admired, would be totally in keeping with his persona.
What's the matter? Afraid you might learn something?
owl.purdue.edu
Interesting, but not important.
You can stop right here. The independent clause is the important part of the sentence. It can exist without the dependent clause. The reverse is not true.
Independent Clause
An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence.
Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz.
Dependent Clause
A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought. A dependent clause cannot be a sentence. Often a dependent clause is marked by a dependent marker word.
Independent and Dependent Clauses - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University
This handout defines dependent and independent clauses and explores how they are treated in standard usage.
Interesting, but not important.
DC v Heller:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tbt.s3.amazonaws.com/public/VJ4XIS5GH5DKJHHUNX7IAFTFP4.jpg)
I did from your post and said what I learned from you. Thanks.
Sigh. You made the initial assertion, which is false and unsupported.
There were a lot of studies on the ban, and again, showed a negligible effect. That's why it was dropped. Worth noting that weapons that would be covered account for only a small percentage of homicides - most are from handguns.
But here are a few citations for you...
From the conclusion....
[qoute]However, other analyses using a variety of national and local data sources
found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that were thought to
be more closely associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons
and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The
ban did not produce declines in the average number of victims per incident
of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple wounds.
Exactly, models of guns can be highly restricted without any real harm to the gun owners.
lol. Pluck one phrase (with a qualifier), chop it off the paragraph, and run victory laps.
No, it specifically proves my statement that crimes involving banned weapons went down when they were banned. Read what follows, it changes nothing about the statement.
