Some people have never read this or dont really understand what it means..it's the opening to our "Declaration of Independence"
I highly recommend everyone to take a moment and refresh your memory, because it is directly relative to this silly debate over the 2As protection of individual rights of gun ownership especially when the president said you would need F16s to fight the government..
Don't worry, I will make the most important part bold so you cant miss it
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
"The gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime.”
“The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state.”
"The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
“If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 and 17 and 18 or any other aged persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?”
-Warren Burger
No, it wasn't just for militias. And no one is arguing an "unfettered" right. Another strawman ass destroyed by the dazzler.
PS Super constitutionalist Warren Burger voted for the fake Constitutional abortion right which today is the only Constitutional right that leftards think should be "unfettered".
Super constitutionalist Antonin Scalia decided “A we’ll regulated militia” has no meaning. You repeat that argument here, though giving effect to all the words of any enactment is the black letter law on interpretation. You supposedly went to law school, didn’t you?
lol
Scalia > HHusky
And I didn't even have to go to law school to understand this.
The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
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 the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.
Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, explored the relationship between the prefatory and operative clauses of the Second Amendment in a 1998 New York University Law Review article that helped lay the groundwork for Heller. While such prefatory phrases were unusual in the U.S. Constitution, Volokh noted, they were common enough in state constitutions that their function can be elucidated by considering how those documents were understood.
Volokh cited dozens of state constitutional provisions from the founding era that used a similar structure: a prefatory clause stating a purpose, followed by a statement of a right. These provisions covered, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom from unjustified searches and seizures, and the right to be tried for a crime in the county where the crime was committed. In such cases, Volokh said, no one could reasonably argue that "only when a judge has concluded that exercising the right furthers the prefatory purpose does the right exist."
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." - Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
I could go on and on this took almost a minute to find but then you are a moron.
HHusky absolutely roasted again. Facts are such embarrassing things.
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
Outside the right of the people to bear arms thing - you nailed it.
When you leave the inconvenient words out of the analysis, it’s way easier to get the answer you want.
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Some nutjob with a machete or a sewed on penis isn't going to infringe on my unalienable right to life.
Will defend that ultimate unalienable right through any and all means.
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Some nutjob with a machete or a sewed on penis isn't going to infringe on my unalienable right to life.
Will defend that ultimate unalienable right through any and all means.
Chitty chitty bang bang, motherfucker.
That Declaration of Constitution stuff is awesome!
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
You gals could have used Gouverneur Morris, who actually did say something to support your version of Founders' intent. Unforced error on your part.
But being the ignorant rabble you are, you attempt to prove your point with bunch a bunch of statements that actually prove you and the Dago judiciary (dead and living) totally wrong, as well as the words of multiple Englishmen.
But you're willing to declare victory, and as our recent elections prove, that's all that really matters.
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
You gals could have used Gouverneur Morris, who actually did say something to support your version of Founders' intent. Unforced error on your part.
But being the ignorant rabble you are, you attempt to prove your point with bunch a bunch of statements that actually prove you and the Dago judiciary (dead and living) totally wrong, as well as the words of multiple Englishmen.
But you're willing to declare victory, and as our recent elections prove, that's all that really matters.
Dazzler can't even understand that the militia is the people not the military. But he says he's schmart!
Well regulated. By whom, Mall Cop?
I means they need to be competent those days. Oh and they have to supply their own arms and gear. You know in case the government needs overthrowing.
Really, the whole thing was to avoid the need for a standing army, and that ship has sailed. It wasn’t intended to provide an individual right to own a gun. Berger was right. The whole thing has been a fraud.
How is it that a bright legal mind such as your own has been wrong multiple times in the last 20 years? Every major gun case that shows before the Supreme Court has an interpretation 180 out from your own deluded perspective? You get presented MANY quotes attributed to MANY FFs and you still persist in thinking you are correct, when ALL factual evidence says you are wrong. This isn't me wishing gun ownership to be an individual right it to be true. I do not have to wish. The facts are overwhelmingly on my side. But, I guess you have your feelings, which is nice. Good for you.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Some nutjob with a machete or a sewed on penis isn't going to infringe on my unalienable right to life.
Will defend that ultimate unalienable right through any and all means.
Chitty chitty bang bang, motherfucker.
That Declaration of Constitution stuff is awesome!
Comments
Open the southern border
I wonder what will happen then
Restrictions on the number of Cubans, Venezuelans and Haitians only.
I highly recommend everyone to take a moment and refresh your memory, because it is directly relative to this silly debate over the 2As protection of individual rights of gun ownership especially when the president said you would need F16s to fight the government..
Don't worry, I will make the most important part bold so you cant miss it
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
You can read the rest here.....
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
By the way she's an alki. In case you missed it she was caught drunk driving and it was swept under the rug
Explains a lot
Scalia > HHusky
And I didn't even have to go to law school to understand this.
The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
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 the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.
Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, explored the relationship between the prefatory and operative clauses of the Second Amendment in a 1998 New York University Law Review article that helped lay the groundwork for Heller. While such prefatory phrases were unusual in the U.S. Constitution, Volokh noted, they were common enough in state constitutions that their function can be elucidated by considering how those documents were understood.
Volokh cited dozens of state constitutional provisions from the founding era that used a similar structure: a prefatory clause stating a purpose, followed by a statement of a right. These provisions covered, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom from unjustified searches and seizures, and the right to be tried for a crime in the county where the crime was committed. In such cases, Volokh said, no one could reasonably argue that "only when a judge has concluded that exercising the right furthers the prefatory purpose does the right exist."
One would think a person with 4 degrees could read basic English, but nah.
Some nutjob with a machete or a sewed on penis isn't going to infringe on my unalienable right to life.
Will defend that ultimate unalienable right through any and all means.
Chitty chitty bang bang, motherfucker.
But being the ignorant rabble you are, you attempt to prove your point with bunch a bunch of statements that actually prove you and the Dago judiciary (dead and living) totally wrong, as well as the words of multiple Englishmen.
But you're willing to declare victory, and as our recent elections prove, that's all that really matters.
Carry on, ladies. I know you will.
No shit, dumbfuck.
Fuck off.
"Fuck off!"
You girls really know how to win an argument.
Now you get peon treatment.
Fuck off and go work on your Russian State narrative homework.