What Next for Scared Conservatives?

[Hogeye]

I consulted English (and critical thinking) expert Joe Guinn, and learned that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a subordinate phrase, but a nominative absolute phrase. It does not strictly qualify the main phrase, but simply explains it.

Now, back to intent:

If "the intent of the 2ndA" was to please all sides, then the intent was not to ensure a permanent right to bear arms.

This does not follow. Perhaps you erroneously assume that intentions are exclusive - that the 2ndA can have only one intention. That this is false can be seen from the 1stA, which has several intents: a) guaranteeing freedom of speech, b) guaranteeing freedom of the press, c) guaranteeing freedom of assembly, d) guaranteeing freedom of religion, e) guaranteeing right of petition.

Furthermore, in the quote Sav gives, he omits two key words, inadvertantly altering the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote, "The intent of the 2ndA as written was to please all sides by stating two different claims." Dropping the two italicized words makes it seem like I'm claiming that pleasing all sides was the purpose of the 2ndA. In fact, I'm stating that the purpose of the obscure/contorted wording was to please all sides - quite a different thing.

If [2] is a separate claim, it would have no effect on anything whatsoever.

Right. In particular, it doesn't qualify or weaken the individual right to bear arms asserted in the main clause.

That is, if [2] adds nothing legal to the Amendment, and if [1] alone reflects the true intent, why is [2] there?

Asked and answered - to please the faction favoring a strong militia.

Your interpretation is equal to that of "Citzens shall have the right to bear arms, and hey, by the way, militias are necessary, and stuff."

Right again. The fluff is basically a policy statement having nothing to do with rights, but inserted merely to assuage the pro-militia types.

We agree that the 2ndA is obtusely worded compared to the other Bill of Rights amendments. I have offered an explanation of why this is the case - the controversial nature of the subject. The 2ndA wording is contorted due to political compromise. We agree that it is contorted because, as you put it, "no document can mandate whether a militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

You seem to be indirectly arguing either that legislatures were full of dupes or that the authors were perpetrating fraud.

Yes, I would say mainly the latter. The US Constitution was essentially a paper coup conducted by land speculators, war script speculators, and big government Hamiltonians. It basically rejected the revolutionary principles of the Declaration of Independence. Generally, the Federalists knew they were imposing a strong central government for their own undisclosed pecuniary purposes, but in their propaganda they fraudulently portrayed it as innocuous to the liberty of the people.

Thanks for turning me on to Noah Webster's letter to Ben Franklin. It is very interesting, with Noah's ideas ranging from extremely wise to amazingly naive. The introductory commentary (by an unnamed author) is hogwash, as can easily be seen by reading Noah's text. In particular, the commentator gives this quote:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

and falsely claims, "the context is the regular army versus the militia." Actually, the context in Noah's own words is, "in what consists the power of a nation or of an order of men?" In other words, where does governmental power come from? He doesn't mention a militia at all in this section.

Webster says that in ancient times power came from exploiting religion, but that can't happen here. (Boy, did he get that one wrong!) Then he says (like Mao) that power flows from the barrel of a gun: "Another source of power in government is a military force." Webster makes it clear that he considers armed people a sufficient defense against a tyrannical government: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

In any case, though, unless Webster played a significant role in the drafting of the Second Amendment, citing his opinion does not speak to intent.

I disagree; intent includes not only the writers, but the arguments of the proponents and the rationale of the people ratifying. Suppose Madison's real undisclosed intent was to make money for his buddies in the Ohio Land Company, yet advertised and sold the 2ndA as a limitation on government. In such a situation, the pro-ratification propaganda (e.g. Federalist Papers and Webster's piece) and ratifier's intent is more pertinent than the writer's intent.

"In their speeches in Philadelphia, their private letters [ . . . ], and their newspaper essays, the Framers made it abundantly clear that they expected the Constitution to benefit creditors and Americans who had speculated, whether in Indian land or war bonds." - Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States

Also, see "Our Enemy the State" by Albert Jay Nock for more on the land spec angle.

[Savonarola]

I consulted English (and critical thinking) expert Joe Guinn, and learned that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a subordinate phrase, but a nominative absolute phrase. It does not strictly qualify the main phrase, but simply explains it.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, and as Hogeye has repeatedly ignored, there is no sense in appealing to the "rules [or conventions] of English" when it is quite clear that said rules and conventions were not followed.

This does not follow.

You need to make up your mind. I am looking for the intent of the Second Amendment, and you said that it was to please all sides. If you think it is to please all sides and ensure a permanent right to bear arms, you should say so.
Regardless, I made it quite clear that I suspected that what you wrote was not actually what you meant. Instead, my remark was meant to emphasize that you had not addressed the question of intent in any meaningful way, and I continued my post with more pertinent material.

Furthermore, in the quote Sav gives, he omits two key words, inadvertantly altering the meaning of what I wrote.

You're right; it was certainly foolish of me to think that you were actually trying to explain what the authors actually wanted the legal effect of the amendment to be.

Asked and answered - to please the faction favoring a strong militia.

But your answer is ridiculous. In fact, you acknowledge that your answer is ridiculous:

We agree that it is contorted because, as you put it, "no document can mandate whether a militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

No sane person should believe that putting "oh, hey, by the way, militias are necessary, and stuff" in the Constitution will have any effect whatsoever. You don't address this conundrum in any way. Your argument is akin to George W. Bush saying, "Well, I don't totally agree with the Voting Rights Act, but since we've amended it to say 'The President is currently listening to the Dixie Chicks,' I'm going to approve it."

Yes, I would say mainly the latter. The US Constitution was essentially a paper coup ...

Let's stay on topic; you've derailed enough threads to the topic of anarchy, and I simply won't have it, both as a participant in this discussion and as a moderator.

Thanks for turning me on to Noah Webster's letter to Ben Franklin.

You didn't know about it? You mean you're citing documents that quote statements out of context, and you haven't even followed your own links to see this?

In particular, the commentator gives this quote:

[snip]

and falsely claims, "the context is the regular army versus the militia."

That particular portion is regarding a standing army versus an armed populace. The main point of the larger passage is exploring from where power comes. The portion merely states that "the [American] people are armed," and they indeed were when the paper was written in October of 1787, twenty months before Madison first proposed his version of the Second Amendment.

In such a situation, the pro-ratification propaganda (e.g. Federalist Papers and Webster's piece) and ratifier's intent is more pertinent than the writer's intent.

So we should ignore what Madison meant when he wrote the amendment and instead look at what Madison wrote (and helped write) months earlier in the Federalist Papers? Or if we are forbidden to pay any attention to "the father of the Constitution," we should use the opinion of a lexicographer that was written way before the Amendment was proposed? Does the phrase "get real" ring a bell?

[Hogeye]

There is no sense in appealing to the "rules [or conventions] of English" when it is quite clear that said rules and conventions were not followed.

But the rules and conventions of the English language were followed. The second amendment is grammatically correct. It makes perfect sense to look at the meaning of the sentence according to English usage.

I'm sorry "the 2ndA as written" is unintelligable to you. Let me rephrase: The 2ndA was formulated more ambiguously than the 1st because it was an attempt at a compromise wording that would please different factions.

The intent of Madison was to make the two assertions I cited: 1) That there is an individual ("people's") right to own and bear arms, and 2) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

We seem to agree that (2) has no real import, since it is a silly "contorted" and "ridiculous" proclamation rather than an assertion of a right. We seem to agree that (2) has zero effect on the meaning of (1). What we have remaining is a rather straightforward assertion by Madison, his explicit written intent: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." For some reason you refuse to admit that his intent is exactly what he wrote.


Now, on the side issue of what Webster meant in his letter, you write, "That particular portion is regarding a standing army versus an armed populace." I agree; it is not about militias, but about an armed populace. Thus the commentator's claim is false.

[Savonarola]

But the rules and conventions of the English language were followed.

This is your contention, so merely asserting it does not support your point. In fact, when we look at the evolution of the amendment, we can clearly see that Madison and others did not think rules and conventions incredibly important. Furthermore, arguing that because punctuation is correct does not support your point that conventions must have been followed.

Let me rephrase: The 2ndA was formulated more ambiguously than the 1st because it was an attempt at a compromise wording that would please different factions.

Ah, so you're acknowledging that your statement had nothing to do with the legal intent of the Second Amendment. Again, how foolish of me to think you were addressing the issue without convoluting it.

The intent of Madison was to make the two assertions I cited: 1) That there is an individual ("people's") right to own and bear arms, and 2) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

You can keep repeating your claim, but my objections stand for as long as you refuse to address them, as below.

We seem to agree that (2) has no real import, since it is a silly "contorted" and "ridiculous" proclamation rather than an assertion of a right.

Let me clarify: it is your position that the portion of the Amendment that you have designated clause (2) has no real importance; it is my position that your position appeals to the ridiculous notion that people believed that said clause could have any legal effect if it were intended as you insist.

What we have remaining is a rather straightforward assertion by Madison, his explicit written intent:

So you take issue with me for not acknowledging your "as written," but you simply ignore an entire clause and conclude that the remainder is "straightforward." It is precisely because the other clause exists that the Amendment is not as straigtforward as you think.
And of course, you're now making the "straightforward" argument immediately after arguing that the wording is strange and ambiguous...

We seem to agree that (2) has zero effect on the meaning of (1).

As you have presented them, as separate unrelated clauses. I have clearly articulated that your presentation gives absolutely no meaning to (2). Now who is ignoring what the other means?

I agree; it is not about militias, but about an armed populace. Thus the commentator's claim is false.

In Webster's day, the militia was an "armed populace."

[Hogeye]

First the side issue:

In Webster's day, the militia was an "armed populace."

No, in Webster's day the militia was able-bodied men neither too old or too young to serve in defense against foreign invasion, regardless of whether they were currently armed. A lot of the discussion was about providing arms to the unarmed. This is clearly different from "armed populace," which includes armed women, armed elderly, and does not include the currently unarmed.

Summary of the main discussion: I contend that Madison meant what he said about the people's right to bear arms, that his intent is explicit and transparent. Your position is ... well, let me test my understanding of your argument. You contend that:

A) A politician would never ever insert an ambiguity, let alone pabulum, into a bill.

B) If there is apparent ambiguity or pabulum in a bill, then there exists some deep and hidden meaning intended by the politician which transforms it into a statement with logical and relevant meaning.

Therefore, Madison's apparent ambiguity in the 2ndA indicates that in actuality it has a logical and relevant meaning.

Is this a fair formulation of your argument?

[Savonarola]

This is clearly different from "armed populace," which includes armed women, armed elderly, and does not include the currently unarmed.

*sigh*. Standard dictionary definitions of the word in question support my use and meaning. Webster says, "the whole body of the people are armed," which is consistent with my use of "populace." (And just because I want to point it out: One will note that Webster's clause is grammatically incorrect.)

well, let me test my understanding of your argument. You contend that:

A) A politician would never ever insert an ambiguity, let alone pabulum, into a bill.

Your understanding is lacking. Perhaps you should tone down the anarchist's superiority complex and actually pay attention to what I say. Your last two posts have misrepresented my position, but my previous post specifically clarified and explained (yet again) the issue that you have not addressed.

B) If there is apparent ambiguity or pabulum in a bill, then there exists some deep and hidden meaning intended by the politician which transforms it into a statement with logical and relevant meaning.

No; once again, you contend that the ambiguity was inserted purposely, and you hold the position that the explanatory clause was meaningful enough to sway voters, but not meaningful enough to do anything else, especially legally. That is, you seem to expect that exchanges like this one were commonplace:

Voter 1: I don't really like it, in fact, I disagree with it, but my reasoning is such: Because you're voting for it, I will vote for it, too.
Voter 2: I'm voting for it?
Voter 1: Yeah, you're voting for it because I'm voting for it.
Voter 2: But why are you voting for it?
Voter 1: Because you're voting for it.
Voter 2: But the clause is meaningless...
Voter 1: And that's why you're voting for it!
Voter 2: Okay!

Ambiguous, straightforward, ambiguous, straightforward...
Meaningful, irrelevant, meaningful, irrelevant...

Is this a fair formulation of your argument?

Is here where I say, "No," and you continue with, "As you have agreed that my formulation is accurate..."?

[Hogeye]

Regarding Webster: Populace - "the whole body of the people" is not the same as militia - able-bodied males not too young or old.

Main discussion: You attack a strawman in your fictional dialog. I never remotely hinted that the puffery about militia would sway someone who disagreed with the right to bear arms. I said something much weaker, that it placated some factions. First of all, back then people were not as namby-pamby about arms as they are today. There would be very few that would be opposed to owning a gun, any more than owning a hoe. The puffery phrase would likely be expected to gain support from the uncommitted or middle-of-the-roaders. Here's a more likely fictional dialog:

Sam> What do you think of the proposed 2nd amendment?
Joe> Oh, I'm pretty indifferent. I've never had much use for a firearm. They're pretty expensive; I doubt I'll ever get one.
Sam (changing tact)> Wouldn't it be awful if the British Empire invaded us, trying to retake the colonies?
Joe> Yeah, that would really suck.
Sam> Well, you know, the 2nd amendment endorses a strong militia, just in case something like that happens. A militia is also protection against Indian attacks for our brothers out west.
Joe> Well, I guess I'll vote for it then. Couldn't hurt.

Nowadays, we'd call the militia puffery phrase a "rider" - a part of a bill which doesn't actually do anything, but may attract support.

BTW, I didn't say that the 2nd Amendment was straightforward; I said that the main clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is.

Question: What specific English language rules or conventions does the 2nd amendment break?

[Tony]

Hehehe. A most amusing tizzy over semantics. I have a few questions though:
Since this obviously (alas always, always, always) is a debate about the intent of the Founders with hopes of using the Con as the ultimate authority for supporting ones opinion....with as difficult as that has proven to be in the scope of ambiguity, that I think we all can agree, does exist to some extent, what makes Greedy anarchist (Sorry for the dig. Well mostly sorry) think we then can accurately determine whether or not the Founder's intended to use proper grammatical structure?? Merely asserting over and over that they did or did not isn't going to cut it.
Instead, since in these fields of ambiguity, it is commonly acknowledged that we must interpret intent to a degree, provided no breach of logic occurs, what are your REASON's for being pro or anti gun control, and are they good reasons?
Specifically, since we have utilized, correctly or incorrectly, the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd A. to justify restrictions on personal weapons, and also the NRA's slogan part of the 2nd A. "Right to bear arms"-to still allow an armed, though regulated public, I would like to know how a Libertarian of your stripe (I just cannot bring myself to besmirch the name "Anarchist") would justify disallowing for the personal ownership and use of, say, Stinger surface to air missiles, or RPG's. And if he does not, what are his reasons for allowing total personal armament. Just becuase I am curious you see.
Seriously though folks....GREAT semantics debate. Pointless and hopeless me thinks, but GREAT.
Tony Red

[Dardedar]

DAR
Fortunately the constitution has built into it the rules, the method (and a seemingly fair and impartial method), for us fallible humans to get a verdict on this question of interpretation. The Supreme Court interprets, majority vote wins. Again, the ACLU gives a good summary:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

And:

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

DAR
BANG goes the gavel and the court rules to Sav's favor on this matter and it's not even a close call. They did so unanimously.

So the founders write a 2nd amendment, and a process by which a specifically and carefully selected and screened group of learned and intelligent men (and now women) are to interprete how their second amendment is to be implimented, and we are to believe that, to the founders great dismay, the Supreme Court got it all wrong and Hogeye of Ozarkia has it all right? Not too bright those founders eh?

D.

[Hogeye]

Yes, Tony, of course one has a right to own surface-to-air missles and RPGs. Obviously, rulers and their minions do not have super-moral perogatives.

Since this obviously (alas always, always, always) is a debate about the intent of the Founders...

No, I said from the getgo that what really matters is the philosophy, not the legalistic bullshit. In my very first message I wrote:

"Most libertarians argue on an individual/human rights level rather than a legalistic (Constitutional) level. Rights are more fundamental; the Con is only an imperfect attempt at a formal legal statement of rights. The right of self-defense supercedes all decreed law. That said, I'll get off on the legalistic tangent..."

Give me some credit!

Fortunately the constitution has built into it the rules ... to get a verdict on this question of interpretation. ... BANG goes the gavel.

LOL! Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Wow - a freethinker citing scripture! Besides this obvious fallacy, it is ironic that you try to settle this legalistic argument by supporting a violation of the most basic legal rule there is: the prohibition of judging one's own case. The US Supreme Court is part of the US government, so legally speaking is unqualified to judge concerning limitation of its own powers.

There are yet other things wrong with your claim that the Supreme Court settles all. Both the people and the several states can judge constitutionality. People may seceed (cf: the Declaration of Independence for the philosophy, or Spencer's essay The Right to Ignore the State. On a legalistic basis, states may nullify laws or seceed. Cf: The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, etc.

[Savonarola]

Regarding Webster: Populace - "the whole body of the people" is not the same as militia - able-bodied males not too young or old.

"The whole body of the people" is armed when significantly many defense-capable individuals are armed; if Webster's use of "the whole body of the people" was not inclusive of those capable of sufficently defending themselves (i.e. the militia), then his statement would not be true.

I never remotely hinted that the puffery about militia would sway someone who disagreed with the right to bear arms.

Hmm...

The intent of the 2ndA as written was to please all sides by stating two different claims: 1) That there is an individual ("people's") right to own and bear arms, and 2) that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

"To please all sides"? Which sides are those, then? The side agreeing with the right to bear arms, and the other side agreeing with the right to bear arms?
Despite the fact that "very few that would be opposed to owning a gun," it is still your position that it was necessary to dupe people into approving the proposed amendment:

Sam> Well, you know, the 2nd amendment endorses a strong militia, just in case something like that happens. A militia is also protection against Indian attacks for our brothers out west.
Joe> Well, I guess I'll vote for it then. Couldn't hurt.

This, of course, is incredibly humorous when considering your earlier statement:

I disagree; intent includes not only the writers, but the arguments of the proponents and the rationale of the people ratifying. [emphasis added]

So you'd have us believe:
(1a) The clause is meaningless, but
(1b) It was included only because the issue was very controversial, yet
(1c) Significantly many people were indifferent, still yet
(1d) Very few would oppose owning guns.
(2a) Madison's and other Congressmen's intent have no more legal meaning than that of a person like Joe, but
(2b) Joe approved it merely because Sam duped him into thinking that the "endorsement" of a militia means anything, and
(2c) Joe actually doesn't care about the right to bear arms, and
(2d) There were many people just like Joe!

Somewhere there's a story about somebody trying to plug holes in a dike with his fingers, but in order to plug an additional hole, he'd have to unplug a different one. Such is the dilemma Hogeye is suffering in trying to reconcile these positions. Every attempt he makes to plug a hole only opens another one.

Nowadays, we'd call the militia puffery phrase a "rider" - a part of a bill which doesn't actually do anything, but may attract support.

Heck, while we're wasting so much time on semantics: No, generally a "rider" is an amendment that does do something, but that is so insignificant compared to the bill to which it was amended that people will begrudgingly accept the rider in order to pass the important bill. In other words, the explanatory clause of the Second Amendment is nothing like a rider...

BTW, I didn't say that the 2nd Amendment was straightforward; I said that the main clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is.

If the main clause were alone, then you'd have a case. It is not; therefore you do not.

Question: What specific English language rules or conventions does the 2nd amendment break?

You insist that there is some convention for using "nominative absolute" phrases. However, as we can tell from writings of the people in question, including Webster (yes, Webster the language expert, as in "the Merriam-Webster dictionary," whose breaking of standard English rules has been shown earlier in this thread) himself, making the assumption that all rules and obscure conventions were followed is indeed unjustifiable.
(Ironically, the actual handwritten text of the Second Amendment contains grammatical and capitalization errors, but as this was apparently a transcription error, that is (mostly) beside the point.)

[Hogeye]

It seems you now agree that "the militia" is a proper subset of "the populace", hence they are not the same. I'm glad we settled that.

When trying to justify your strawman, you seem to be saying the fact that there are different points of view ("sides", "factions") implies that the militia phrase would convince those opposing RTBA to change their opinion. But that of course does not follow.

You seem to think it "incredibly humorous" that appealing to a strong military might sway some people. Humorous or not, it might.

Let's look at the list of things I allegedly would "have us believe," and separate the strawmen from the half-truths.

(1a) The clause is meaningless.
Yes, the militia puffery clause is legally meaningless in the context of rights (as in Bill of Rights), since it says nothing about rights.)
(1b) It was included only because the issue was very controversial.
Yes, controversial among certain elites like those who attended the Constitutional Convention. Some of these elites were afraid of more Shays' Rebellions.
(1c) Significantly many people were indifferent.
Among the masses, gun ownership was less of an issue.
(1d) Very few would oppose owning guns.
Again, in the general public.
(2a) Madison's and other Congressmen's intent have no more legal meaning than that of a person like Joe.
This is a total strawman; Joe was indifferent (and fictional.)
(2b) Joe approved it merely because Sam duped him into thinking that the "endorsement" of a militia means anything.
The militia puffery phrase means nothing legally, but it is a feel-good phrase that could sway some voters.
(2c) Joe actually doesn't care about the right to bear arms.
Joe is a fictional person representing people who were indifferent or not particularly interested.
(2d) There were many people just like Joe.
Most people, now or then, are not interested in every issue that comes up, and are not political junkies.

These statements (except the strawman) are quite reasonable once you retrieve the dropped context.

You ducked my question: What specific English language rules or conventions does the 2nd amendment break? Can I assume that you can find no broken rules? Are you backing off from your claim that "it is quite clear that said rules and conventions were not followed."?

Let's recap: I contend that it is reasonable to apply standard English rules and conventions for interpreting the 2nd A. Standard usage makes the nominative absolute phrase a non-qualifying explanation of the main phrase - not a strict conditional. Thus it is incorrect to interpret the 2nd A (as gungrabbers tend to do) to mean Only if a militia is necessary, is gun ownership an individual right. Instead, the conventional, standard English interpretation is: There is a right to bear arms, with one explanation/motivation for that right being the necessity for a militia.

It seems to me the burden of proof is on you to show that Madison (and other relevant persons) meant the very opposite of conventional English usage, if you are trying to argue that the militia phrase is a stict conditional. Simply showing that Madison/Webster/whoever didn't always use proper English is, of course, insufficient.

[Savonarola]

It seems you now agree that "the militia" is a proper subset of "the populace", hence they are not the same. I'm glad we settled that.

Fine, Hogeye, you can have the all the spoils of the "the denotation of militia is not precisely identical to the denotation of populace" discussion. Let us note that "populace" was my word, not Webster's, and that the line of reasoning presented in my previous post necessarily applies to his passage in order for it to be true.

When trying to justify your strawman, you seem to be saying the fact that there are different points of view ("sides", "factions") implies that the militia phrase would convince those opposing RTBA to change their opinion.

I showed that it was quite easy to think that you "remotely hinted" that the proposed amendment "as written" would impact "all sides," which includes those who disagree with the right to bear arms.

You seem to think it "incredibly humorous" that appealing to a strong military might sway some people.

No, I find it incredibly humorous that your two approaches don't stand without each other, but can't stand with each other.

(2a) Madison's and other Congressmen's intent have no more legal meaning than that of a person like Joe.
This is a total strawman; Joe was indifferent (and fictional.)

First, "Joe" represents the indifferent "masses," the existence of which is a cornerstone of your position. Now you're insisting that "Joe" doesn't exist (or is fictional), which leaves a hole in your position.
Second, you clearly stated that in certain cases, the rationale of the ratifying voters went to intent. Here you seem to be shying away from that assertion. (And we can see why, as you seem to be arguing that significantly many voters wanted simply to endorse a militia instead of to assert the right to bear arms.) If this is not a case where ratifying voters' intent should matter, then we're back to the intent of Madison et al.

These statements (except the strawman) are quite reasonable once you retrieve the dropped context.

Putting the statements in the context of the other statements shows precisely why holding each and every statement presents a problem. Add all the other context you want, because it doesn't solve your dilemma.

You ducked my question: What specific English language rules or conventions does the 2nd amendment break?

Again, how foolish of me not to have spelled it out instead of thinking that Hogeye could put two and two together: I believe it's unreasonable to think that the Second Amendment follows your phantom "convention" that subjective nominative phrases are meaningless. This is evidenced by the lack of these phrases among the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Your explanation for this, the "wishy-washy voters on a controversial issue" resolution, has gaping holes.

Are you backing off from your claim that "it is quite clear that said rules and conventions were not followed."?

Are you backing off from your claim that statements should be taken in context?

It seems to me the burden of proof is on you to show that Madison (and other relevant persons) meant the very opposite of conventional English usage, if you are trying to argue that the militia phrase is a stict conditional.

So now Madison (et al)'s intent is what matters? Are you sure, or are you going to flip-flop yet again? This goalpost shifting marathon is getting old.

[Hogeye]

I believe it's unreasonable to think that the Second Amendment follows your phantom "convention" that subjective nominative phrases are meaningless.

You have misunderstood the convention. The convention is: nominative absolute phrases are explanatory, not qualificatory. I checked this with other sources; it's not something I made up to rile you. Ask an English professor if you don't believe it.

(The rest of your "points" seem to be rationalizations of why it was reasonable to misinterpret me, plus a ridiculous assertion that fictional Joe was the cornerstone of my argument.)

[Dardedar]

Wow - a freethinker citing scripture! Besides this obvious fallacy,...

DAR
Isn't it just consistent to say that if we are going to sign on to accepting the Constitution, and we have (otherwise the conversation is moot in the first place) that we not inconsistently throw out the part about who gets to intreprete the document? How is that an "obvious fallacy"? Perhaps if I purchased a copy of your "Fallacies for Dummies: How to use charges of fallacy in place of good argumentation" I would understand this better.
Upon what basis do you say we should pay attention to the Second Amendment of the Constitution yet at the same time NOT it's prescripts regarding interpretation? I guess being an anarchist means you can just pick and choose and make it up as you go? Where's the consistency in that?

Besides this obvious fallacy, it is ironic that you try to settle this legalistic argument by supporting a violation of the most basic legal rule there is: the prohibition of judging one's own case. The US Supreme Court is part of the US government, so legally speaking is unqualified to judge concerning limitation of its own powers.

DAR
What nonsense. So perhaps we should assign France to do the task? The system of having lifetime appointed judges, nominated by one branch and affirmed by another branch, for the purpose of creating an independent judiciary, seems fair. It's not perfect, but what would you purpose in place of it? Do answer that question, don't duck it. What do you have that is better? By what system could the founders have had set up so that "Hogeye of Ozarkia" could have been chosen to correctly interpret the words of their constitution?

There are yet other things wrong with your claim that the Supreme Court settles all. Both the people and the several states can judge constitutionality. People may seceed....

DAR
Okay. And when they do you may, perhaps (doubtful), have a shot. But until then, according to the rules, bang goes the gavel and Sav's position rules, by unanimous decree. Not even close.

On a legalistic basis, states may nullify laws or seceed.

DAR
States can nullify Supreme Court rulings while remaining a State? Okay, lets pretend that's true. If and when they do you may, perhaps (doubtful), have a shot. But until then, according to the rules, bang goes the gavel and Sav's position rules, by unanimous decree. Not even close.

D.

[Savonarola]

I notice that I didn't get a clear answer as to whether you think the intent of Madison et al is really what matters, so I'll show conclusively what their intent was so that you can get back to your special pleading.

The convention is: nominative absolute phrases are explanatory, not qualificatory.

Around and around we go. In my very first post to this thread, I said that the phrase is indeed explanatory, and that understanding the explanation undermines a strict interpretation of the naked main clause.

Let us look at what the committee presented to the rest of the House:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

It is abundantly clear that the rationale for "the people" to keep and bear arms is that the source of a militia, which is necessary for security, is "the people." Furthermore, we can see from the latter part of the proposed amendment that the committee specifically wanted to avoid implying that pacifists were required to bear arms for the purpose of national security. This makes absolutely no sense if the explanatory clause's reference to the militia exists only to sway voters and/or has no meaning, but it makes perfect sense if the reference to the militia was pertinent. According to several sources cited in the U.S. v. Miller decision, militiamen were expected to supply their own weapons if called into duty, which requires owning guns and ammunition. This, unlike Hogeye's position, is perfectly harmonious with the interpretation that is already sufficently clear.

In other words, "Because a militia is necessary, and because the militia is composed of the people, the people need to be armed; however, we are not saying that 'the people must be armed so that they can serve in the militia.'"

[Hogeye]

It is abundantly clear that the rationale for "the people" to keep and bear arms is that the source of a militia, which is necessary for security, is "the people."

No, but you are close. Change "the" to "a" or "one" and I agree. It is abundantly clear that one rationale.... There is no implication whatsoever that military necessity is a qualificatory "only if" condition (which is what you are arguing, even if you resist calling it "qualificatory.") Also, the statement that conscientious objectors won't be forced to carry arms in no way implies that there is no right to bear arms.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in that formulation which contradicts or qualifies the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is an explanation of why it was deemed important, and a little CO rider for the Quakers.

Since there is nothing whatsoever to indicate the militia phrase is qualificatory, and since the qualificatory "interpretation" is counter to all English convention and usage, I have to conclude that that bizarre interpretation is simply wishful thinking by "gungrabbers."

[Savonarola]

As predicted, we're back to intent, which I tried to emphasize in my previous few posts...

Your objection to my reasoning is that the rationale raised is only one of many. You say,

There is an explanation of why it was deemed important ...

but as I pointed out, there are no such "explanations" anywhere else, and despite the existence of documents with completely naked "unexplained" statements of the right, the authors chose to include mention of the militia. Your rationalization for the inclusion of such an allegedly purely peripheral statement is that the phrase is intended only to sway voters, but this is somewhat contrary to the existence of said naked statements in politically meaningful statements (New Hampshire Ratification Document), and directly contrary to references to militias in previous documents. In fact, Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (upon which Madison based much of his original proposals) simply asserted that a militia is necessary, not at all that people must have the right to bear arms. (Once again, when combined with the context of militia, which at the time referred to citizens who supplied their own weapons, the meaning is obvious: militiamen need to have their own weapons.) The intent of the authors remains clear as we look at the evolution of the proposal. However, none of your arguments mesh with the this information or with the evolution of the proposed amendment.

Now, Hogeye, if you think that the intent of the Congressmen is only superficially important, come out and say it instead of prancing around the issue. (If you're going to pull that "Well, I don't believe in the Constitution, as it's a fraud, etc., so none of this really matters on a philosophical level" crap again, then let us know now.) Otherwise, address the dilemmas that the intent approach gives your position.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

As minor aside - in Webster's day women and children wouldn't count as "populace" - not for voting, owning property, or bearing arms - just as numbers to increase the number of reps in the House (as did slaves at a 3/5 rep per slave - indians were not counted at all).

[Hogeye]

Your objection to my reasoning is that the [importance of a strong militia] rationale raised is only one of many.

Not precisely. My objection is that there is no good reason to consider the militia phrase as a necessary condition for the main phrase, contrary to standard English. Whether the militia rationale is the only rationale or one of many is irrelevant.

... as I pointed out, there are no such "explanations" anywhere else...

Right; I agree that the 2nd Amendment is worded very ambiguously compared to the other nine in the Bill of Rights. I don't see how this uniquely bad wording helps your (or my) interpretation. Interesting, but irrelevant.

When combined with the context of militia, which at the time referred to citizens who supplied their own weapons, the meaning is obvious: militiamen need to have their own weapons.

I agree that this is a probable intent of Madison and others. But again, this says absolutely nothing about it being a necessary condition for an individual's right to bear arms.

Now, if in any of those various references, there had been an "only if" you'd have a solid case. If you had found a "since" or "because", you'd at least have a semi-plausible case. But you don't even have that. You have only a nominative absolute with no implication whatsoever that it was intended to be a necessary condition to the main clause.

I think Madison's intent is important. We agree on that. Where we disagree is: I take Madison's intent at face value - what he wrote. You claim he really didn't intend what he wrote, that his use of a nominative absolute was a gross error, and that really he meant contrary to standard English usage the militia phrase to be a necessary condition. It seems to me you are trying to obfuscate Madison's clear intent.


Barbara's aside: Webster actually didn't use "populace" in the quote in question - he used "the whole body of the people." Sav and I got off on a tangent about an annotator who switched "the whole body of the people" for "militia," as a result giving an erroneous interpretation of the quote.

Darrel, I've never "signed on" to the Con in any way, shape, or form. (I think it's an evil document which shreads the Declaration of Independence, not to mention condones slavery.) The discussion is about what the 2nd A means. Simply saying "the Supes say so" or "the Con says so" is no different than saying "the pope says so" or "the Bible says so." It's an appeal to authority. (You may ask me about better constitutions in a new thread.)