The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to a federal ban on gun "bump stocks" in a case that could affect thousands of gun-owning Americans.
“… shall not be infringed.” Not “…shall not be infringed except…” or “…shall not be infringed but…” or “…unless…” It’s “…shall not be infringed.” The end.
You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.
Separating items in a list of three or more
Connecting two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership.
No that isn’t clear at all.
It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.
It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.
The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn’t how it all worked out.
The courts don’t view the militia statement as a requirement. It sounds like you’ve never read a court case on topic topic or heard the debate over the comma.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.
Be careful with modern interpretations. I assume you are a liberal which means you’d hate heller. Heller is a modern view the 2nd amendment.
That makes little sense. Can you expand? Democratically placed sounds like you don’t get out government.
We are a constitutional republic. Not everything is voted on. It’s what protects our rights. Otherwise things like gay marriage could be illegal by a vote or trans people could be voted out. With the constitution they are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
I’m not opposed to all restrictions. I’m opposed to restrictions that make it hard for me to carry concealed for self defense.
Bump stock are not something I’d use for self defense or fighting a government. As such I don’t care if it’s banned. That’s what the 2nd amendment is about. A bump stock isn’t an arm. It’s an accessory
The 2nd amendment isn’t being argued. A bump stock is not an arm. Have you read anything on the case? What is being argued is if it creates a machine gun. It does not.
“… shall not be infringed.” Not “…shall not be infringed except…” or “…shall not be infringed but…” or “…unless…” It’s “…shall not be infringed.” The end.
It’s funny because an earlier bit of context that you have cut out from the 2nd discusses the needs of this militia to be well regulated.
You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.
Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.
The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.
If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.
See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?
Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.
The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.
The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.
There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?
No that isn’t clear at all.
It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.
It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.
The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn’t how it all worked out.
Given that gun free zones make easy shooting victims, what can have government regulations will prevent people dedicated to commiting homicide?
If you take a cup of water out of a bucket, does it leave behind a cup shaped opening in the water?
The courts don’t view the militia statement as a requirement. It sounds like you’ve never read a court case on topic topic or heard the debate over the comma.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2167&context=facpubs#:~:text=So%252C%2520the%25202nd%2520Amendment’s%2520second,the%2520one%2520after%2520“Arms%252C”
Sounds like we are in agreement that the amendment is able to be changed to be relevant to modern interpretations.
Nah, the militia bit was always a separate dependent clause (in the English grammar sense). It’s reasoning.
The right shall not be infringed is an independent clause. It stands on it’s own. I know almost no one remembers elementary school, but independent vs dependent clauses are taught there. Anyone remember diagramming sentences?
That’s why I’ve always found this a nuanced discussion.
I’ve always interpreted as the people have the right to keep military style weapons to form a militia. That’s based on the miller case.
The 2nd amendment was never about hunting.
I think the 2nd amendment was poorly written. I’ve read on it extensively and I don’t think it conveys the idea behind it. I think since the courts have further muddled the topic.
Be careful with modern interpretations. I assume you are a liberal which means you’d hate heller. Heller is a modern view the 2nd amendment.
You mean, you have an idea in your head that you think should be enforced on everybody despite it not being democratically placed.
The word for that is fascist. And it just so happens to be the right to deadly violence lmao.
Irony is dead.
That makes little sense. Can you expand? Democratically placed sounds like you don’t get out government.
We are a constitutional republic. Not everything is voted on. It’s what protects our rights. Otherwise things like gay marriage could be illegal by a vote or trans people could be voted out. With the constitution they are protected from the tyranny of the majority.
And none of that applies to thoughts living in your head. You want to enforce your beliefs on everybody without any government process.
Those beliefs is in regards to your right to deadly violence.
You are a violent fascist who uses linguistics on democracy and constitutional republic to dismiss the violence you are advocating.
What are you rambling about? You are making no sense.
Can you be more clear what thoughts you are referencing ?
I outlined the government process.
And what violence am I advocating ? I have advocated for no violence.
Man, I can’t get over you flip-flopping right here.
You literally chimed in to insist upon a modern interpretation, then immediately said nobody else should do so.
Conservatives are inherently incapable of honest debate.
I’m fine with the heller decision. Are you ?
You’re fine with the next court updating these decisions, too, right?
What a desperate attempt to leap from topic to topic to hide from the truth of what you advocated for.
Sad.
Of course, I am. That is their job.
Even Scalia said there are limits on the 2nd amendment.
What military purpose does a bump stock have ?
Don’t know, don’t care, stop crying for our rights to be restricted
I’m not opposed to all restrictions. I’m opposed to restrictions that make it hard for me to carry concealed for self defense. Bump stock are not something I’d use for self defense or fighting a government. As such I don’t care if it’s banned. That’s what the 2nd amendment is about. A bump stock isn’t an arm. It’s an accessory
And unlike you, I’m not a bootlicker
Be civil.
The 2nd amendment isn’t being argued. A bump stock is not an arm. Have you read anything on the case? What is being argued is if it creates a machine gun. It does not.
Removed by mod
The prohibition of functional components of an arm is reasonably an infringement of the right to bear arms.
How? Do you think Scalia didn’t know what he was talking about ?
I think he’s carrying water for his political buddies that have a vested interest in restricting our rights