• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the 2A be repealed?

Repeal the 2A?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
rahl said:
Correct
Click to expand...

Which means there's no reason for that statement to exist at all. That's a very strange interpretation.
 
rahl said:
Dc v Heller

No they can’t. The constitution precludes them from doing so.
Click to expand...
DC v Heller is judicial opinion not Constitutional Law.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

That is a State's sovereign right secured by our Tenth Amendment. The general Government of the Union may not Infringe upon it.
 
danielpalos said:
DC v Heller is judicial opinion not Constitutional Law.
Click to expand...
This kind of ignorance is why you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
danielpalos said:
That is a State's sovereign right secured by our Tenth Amendment. The general Government of the Union may not Infringe upon it.
Click to expand...
Addressed and refuted this already. The state is precluded from doing so.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution, if it is just basic grammar. Thanks for your support.
Click to expand...
Proven false. The 2nd amendment expressly protects the individuals rights. Dc v Heller.
 
rahl said:
Proven false. The 2nd amendment expressly protects the individuals rights. Dc v Heller.
Click to expand...
Show us the Individual or Singular terms in our federal Constitution.

Otherwise, this must be the Right of a sovereign free State of our Union:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...
It is a right, reserved by the several States in federal venues.
 
danielpalos said:
Show us the Individual or Singular terms in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...
The entire constitution, but in this discussion specifically the 2nd and 14th amendments.
danielpalos said:
Otherwise, this must be the Right of a sovereign free State of our Union:
Click to expand...
It’s not as I’ve shown you.
danielpalos said:
It is a right, reserved by the several States in federal venues.
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. It’s a right specifically protected by the constitution for the individual.
 
rahl said:
The entire constitution, but in this discussion specifically the 2nd and 14th amendments.

It’s not as I’ve shown you.

No it isn’t. It’s a right specifically protected by the constitution for the individual.
Click to expand...
Right-wingers have no intellectual integrity.

Vote blue not red!
 
danielpalos said:
Right-wingers have no intellectual integrity.

Vote blue not red!
Click to expand...
Trolling gibberish. You remain objectively refuted by constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent.
 
rahl said:
The entire constitution, but in this discussion specifically the 2nd and 14th amendments.

It’s not as I’ve shown you.

No it isn’t. It’s a right specifically protected by the constitution for the individual.
Click to expand...
The general Government is simply not delegated the social Power to do anything about internal State affairs without supplication.
 
danielpalos said:
The general Government is simply not delegated the social Power to do anything about internal State affairs without supplication.
Click to expand...
Trolling gibberish. You have been proven wrong with constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent.
 
We already know the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States. Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
So, just delete the militia part and absolutely nothing changes, right?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. As I said before, the first clause shows why the second clause is important, but the second clause can stand alone.

Here's how the grammar of the Second Amendment works, supported by two grammar websites, an English professor who specializes in this type of grammar, a sentence diagram, and last, but by no means least, the Supreme Court of the United States:

There are two clauses in the amendment:
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.
The "A well-regulated militia" clause is an absolute phrase (AKA an absolute clause). Absolute phrases offer background, detail and nuance to the main clause but do NOT change the meaning of the main clause.

Absolute Phrase

An absolute phrase is a phrase that modifies a noun in a sentence, but it is not connected to the sentence by a conjunction. It is set off with a comma only, and it could be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence.
https://www.softschools.com/examples/literary_terms/absolute_phrase_examples/420/ [emphasis added]

An absolute phrase can also be recognized by the property that if you remove this phrase, the main phrase will still make sense and the meaning of the sentence will remain the same.
https://www.grammar.com/absolute_phrase [emphasis added]

A good deal of the confusion about the Second comes from it's use of the word "being" in the prefatory clause, in a way that is unusual to modern ears.

James Van den Bosch, Professor Emeritus, a grammarian and expert on absolute clauses, has this to say about it:

In nearly every instance, it makes perfect sense of the entire sentence to turn the AC into an adverb clause of cause by introducing it with “because” and changing the participial “being” into a verb marked appropriately for person, number, and tense.
Absolute Constructions and the Second Amendment: A Corpus Analysis, page 17 https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/LTDCA_2016_proceedings-print.pdf

And in Heller, Scalia did exactly that:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,

“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. DC v Heller page 3 [emphasis added]

Note that there is not one word in the amendment to indicate that the prefatory clause imposes any sort of conditionality on the operative clause. No "only if". No "solely when". That's why people place the most emphasis on the operative clause; because it's the heart of the amendment, the prefatory clause is commentary.

That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause... But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. DC v Heller page 4 [emphasis added]


1636764809267-jpeg.67360979



So no matter what people come up with to try and twist the meaning of the prefatory clause, it does NOT change the meaning of the operative clause: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
We know that can only be accomplished with well regulated and organized militia. The unorganized is not authorized to accomplish any Thing, in Chaos.
 
natman said:
Pretty much. As I said before, the first clause shows why the second clause is important, but the second clause can stand alone.

Here's how the grammar of the Second Amendment works, supported by two grammar websites, an English professor who specializes in this type of grammar, a sentence diagram, and last, but by no means least, the Supreme Court of the United States:

There are two clauses in the amendment:
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.
The "A well-regulated militia" clause is an absolute phrase (AKA an absolute clause). Absolute phrases offer background, detail and nuance to the main clause but do NOT change the meaning of the main clause.

Absolute Phrase

An absolute phrase is a phrase that modifies a noun in a sentence, but it is not connected to the sentence by a conjunction. It is set off with a comma only, and it could be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence.
https://www.softschools.com/examples/literary_terms/absolute_phrase_examples/420/ [emphasis added]

An absolute phrase can also be recognized by the property that if you remove this phrase, the main phrase will still make sense and the meaning of the sentence will remain the same.
https://www.grammar.com/absolute_phrase [emphasis added]

A good deal of the confusion about the Second comes from it's use of the word "being" in the prefatory clause, in a way that is unusual to modern ears.

James Van den Bosch, Professor Emeritus, a grammarian and expert on absolute clauses, has this to say about it:

In nearly every instance, it makes perfect sense of the entire sentence to turn the AC into an adverb clause of cause by introducing it with “because” and changing the participial “being” into a verb marked appropriately for person, number, and tense.
Absolute Constructions and the Second Amendment: A Corpus Analysis, page 17 https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/LTDCA_2016_proceedings-print.pdf

And in Heller, Scalia did exactly that:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,

“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. DC v Heller page 3 [emphasis added]

Note that there is not one word in the amendment to indicate that the prefatory clause imposes any sort of conditionality on the operative clause. No "only if". No "solely when". That's why people place the most emphasis on the operative clause; because it's the heart of the amendment, the prefatory clause is commentary.

That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause... But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. DC v Heller page 4 [emphasis added]


1636764809267-jpeg.67360979



So no matter what people come up with to try and twist the meaning of the prefatory clause, it does NOT change the meaning of the operative clause: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
danielpalos said:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...
You're just spewing random gibberish, because that quote supports Heller.

It's a state often reached by those who refuse to accept the truth even when it's clearly explained to them. Common where the Second Amendment is concerned.
 
natman said:
You're just spewing random gibberish, because that quote supports Heller.

It's a state often reached by those who refuse to accept the truth even when it's clearly explained to them. Common where the Second Amendment is concerned.
Click to expand...
Why are there no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom