The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective)

[jimmy the one]

64. more weird reasoning from gunfolk

beevul: This {2ndA} is exactly the same thing as saying "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." Textually, those two phrases have exactly the same meaning.

I don't know what you think you proved, but it certainly wasn't an individual rkba disconnected from militia. Actually you provide a sophomoric argument, is all.
Scalia also cited Wm Rawle (View of Constitution, 1825): (Scalia): In 1825, Wm Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights.. analyzed {2ndA} as follows:“The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent….“The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Scalia cited Wm Rawle but evidently Scalia didn't know the proper definition of what a 'corollary' is. Webster, 1828: Corollary n. 1. A conclusion or consequence drawn from premises, or from what is advanced or demonstrated. If it is demonstrated that a triangle which has equal sides, has also equal angles, it follows as a corollary that a triangle which has three equal sides, has its three angles equal.. A corollary is an inference from a preceding proposition... 2. A surplus.

A corollary is a principle derived from a higher rule or law, it is something which logically follows from something coming before it. Rawle clearly contended, & Scalia cited him the very phrases, that the individual rkba clause was a COROLLARY to the militia clause. Thus the rkba was derived from the higher law, the need for a well regulated militia. It would be a ludicrous corollary to contend an individual rkba disconnected from militia service was derived from the need for a well regulated militia, that doesn't logically follow. Then scalia goes on to rule the rkba clause was the controlling clause, thus contradicting Rawle by contending a corollary can control the proposition it was derived from!!!

beevul: Second and more importantly - and this inconvenient bit of fact destroys your entire premise - the bill of rights in which amendment 2 is contained, was at the time of its writing a "government shall not" document.. - each specifying what government is forbidden from doing..

Duh, exactly what I wrote prior to you posting; I contended that the bor was a limitation on the congress. It was eleanors who didn't recognize this, & I pointed it out. So my 'entire premise' hasn't been destroyed, you've just proven yourself rather inept today at comprehension.. oh I see your problem, you posted monday morning, & missed my ~10pm sunday post to eleanors further down: ..the amendments in US bill of rights are also limitations on the powers of congress. And the 'right' in the 2nd amendment indeed granted an INDIVIDUAL the right to belong to a well reg'd militia..

beevul: So basically, you got nothing. .. No that would be you. An apology & retraction in order from you.