A well, regulated militia meant the firearms knowledgeable and experienced portion of the populace

[ogsbee]

that could be called into action when needed, to 18th century readers. Standing armies were not desired.

George Washington: "I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got." (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html) He wasn't talking about a government controlled (a different meaning of regulated) Virginia National Guard (a different meaning of militia).

Read this way (the way the signers intended it, IMO), the 2nd Amendment no longer argues against itself, no longer contains internal inconsistencies. This also explains why the main clause is so declarative and unambiguous.

[Old Codger]

1. hmmmmmmm

Regulated=Trained......Best regulated meant best trained......Militias at that time consisted of all able bodied men over the age of 16...

[Turbineguy]

2. I guess I would look through

writings of the time and see if that word "regulated" was used more often and in what context.

I've run into technical manuals which state that a machine should be "controlled". It actually means "inspected" or looked at or perhaps even regulated.

But considering the way the rest of the US Constitution was written, I don't think the Founders advocated giving guns to all comers.

[nebenaube]

3. then I would think

you are a fool...

[Turbineguy]

4. Thank you

That was helpful.

Carry On!

[Tejas]

5. Looking at what they were up against,

"But considering the way the rest of the US Constitution was written, I don't think the Founders advocated giving guns to all comers."

I would tend to highly disagree.

[Tejas]

9. No.

Washington's words in the OP concerned the defense of Ticonderoga, not whether Brady and the rest are loons.

[gorfle]

28. Well-regulated.

But considering the way the rest of the US Constitution was written, I don't think the Founders advocated giving guns to all comers.

Well, technically you are correct. The militia was typically only for men, and men of a certain age at that.

In my opinion, it does not really matter what "well-regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment, though I tend to believe that it means "well disciplined, trained, and equipped".

The reason it does not matter is because the second amendment speaks to a well-regulated militia. And we know from contemporary writings exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they spoke of militias. They had in mind decentralized military organizations under the control of the states - specifically not the federal government. This was done out of fear that a strong, armed federal government could overpower The States, and thus The People, and raise a tyranny.

Unfortunately, the militias of our founding fathers' day ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act, which federalized them and created the National Guard. It also created the Unorganized Militia - all able bodied men not in the National Guard aged 17-45. But the organized, trained, and I daresay well-regulated militias that our founding fathers envisioned as a counterbalance to federal military power are gone.

It is my view that even though the militias themselves are gone, the vision of the founding fathers is still as valid today as it was when they created this country. And so the right to bear arms must default to The People who made up the militias and whose liberties the militias were intended to protect. Even if the militias no longer exist, The People do.

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.

[ogsbee]

35. I would say the original militias still do exist

The 18th century militia was simply a body of fighting men or even just the men of fighting age. There was nothing organized or controlled (by states or country), disciplined or even trained about it. The word had a different usage back then. "Well-regulated" meant trained (though it could be self trained) and able. For example, from a discussion of the Cree and Wabash Indians during the suppression of the Indians comes this quote, "the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated". There are also other quotes showing customary 18th century usage at http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html At any rate, the above is how I read these quotes.

[gorfle]

43. Please provide an example.

I would say the original militias still do exist

The 18th century militia was simply a body of fighting men or even just the men of fighting age. There was nothing organized or controlled (by states or country), disciplined or even trained about it.

Regardless of the level of organization and training, there is no analog today of the militias of the founders' day that serves as a counter to federal military power. All that is left is the unorganized militia.

The decentralized, state-sponsored, state-officer-led, organized militias no longer exist.

[jody]

6. Don't bother yourself, SCOTUS will say in D.C. v. Heller in June whether the 2nd protects an

individual or collective right and most people believe it will say individual right.

[iverglas]

7. and of course

the opinion of Alito and Thomas and Roberts and Scalia is what everyone would want their country being organized according to!

I know I would.

:sarcasm: , heavy.

[Tejas]

8. Concerning the RKBA, yes. n/t

[bossy22]

10. it doesnt matter

what the supreme court says goes....it doesnt matter if the court is stacked with ultra right wing zealots...if the court says that its an ind. right then all other courts have to look at cases in that light.



"the opinion of Alito and Thomas and Roberts and Scalia is what everyone would want their country being organized according to!"
well it seems like many people in this country do...despite that we may not like it

One thing that bothers me on this forum is the mindset that conservitism and right-wing politicans are illegitimate....despite the fact that more people voted for Bush than for Kerry, or that for 12 years republicans won more votes in the congress...

so maybe the majority of the country wants alito, thomas, roberts, and scalia organizing the country- who knows, me personally i dont want it but there on the supreme court and i have to live with it....pretending that somehow their decision is illegitimate is dangerous and just downright stupid

so if they rule it to be an individual right- its an individual right in all practical sense- DEAL WITH IT

[jody]

11. Is there some intellectually challenged person who denies that SCOTUS decisions are law of the land?

Perhaps that person demonstrates her/his gross ignorance of our Constitution that says in Article III.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[bossy22]

12. I wouldnt say intellectually challenged

i would say someone living in a lala land

[iverglas]

18. Actually, I think that what you would say is

that nobody said any such thing.

Isn't that what you were saying?

Be honest, now, as some hereabouts are fond of saying.

[bossy22]

22. well i guess you were right

you didnt say such a thing...you implied it

grow up and stop playing stupid

[iverglas]

24. playing stupid

Yes, that is indeed what a non-stupid person would have to be doing, to imply that what the Supreme Court of the US says about anything isn't what goes.

Too bad I wasn't doing that, and didn't imply that. The thing being, I just can't imagine why anyone, let along moiself, would do such a thing. Why would anyone pretend to believe that what the Supreme Court of the US says about something isn't what goes?? That's just bizarre. I mean, it's not like it's even something that some stupid person in the vicinity might be persuaded to believe. I would hope, anyhow. It would just be a really, incredibly, inexplicably dumb thing to do/say. Kinda like wandering in and saying "the earth is flat" and what, expecting nobody to point out that it isn't?

But hey, you feel free to keep pretending you thought I was doing that, and did imply that! About all I can think of to say to that is ... how'd that go? ...

grow up and stop playing stupid

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ogsbee]

27. Well, there are limits and checks (if extreme)

For example, after the outrageous ruling installing Bush the Lesser as the President or, more accurately, Squatter-in-chief, the Supreme Court majority should have been impeached, indicted, arrested and imprisoned for criminal conspiracy to commit electoral fraud (in a perfect world).

The Bill of Rights recognize -- they do not grant, that is impossible by the nature of the rights -- the natural, inherent, inalienable rights of individuals. Any ruling to the contrary is illegitimate, period.

[iverglas]

19. "what the supreme court says goes"

Duh, eh?

What I was actually commenting on was what was actually said, with emphasis to assist:

Don't bother yourself, SCOTUS will say in D.C. v. Heller in June whether the 2nd protects an individual or collective right and most people believe it will say individual right.

Actually, a lot of people bother themselves a fair bit when the public policy of their society is being decided by right-wing cretins like the ones I named.


One thing that bothers me on this forum is the mindset that conservitism and right-wing politicans are illegitimate

That's nice.

I'll stick to the mindset that right-wing politicians and judges are vile and disgusting.


pretending that somehow their decision is illegitimate is dangerous and just downright stupid

Yes, if only someone had done that.

Ah, how rumours start. You've gone and got jody all worried that there are stupid people present now, by pretending that someone pretended something that no one pretended.

Pretending that people said things they didn't say ... just look at the bother it causes.


so if they rule it to be an individual right- its an individual right in all practical sense- DEAL WITH IT

I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. Deal with that.

And if your Supreme Court decides that little feties are full-blown persons for the purpose of the law and pregnant women must be sentenced to death by laws prohibiting abortion, then women in the US will just have to deal with that. Et cetera, et cetera. I still won't have to deal with anything, because so far there's no sign of this slime infecting anywhere I live.

And the way that some people who do have to deal with it, where you live, might choose to DEAL WITH IT is to vote for legislators and an executive that will get rid of this right-wing slime that has been inflicted on your society at the earliest possible opportunity, by appointing decent human beings to take their place and/or outvote them.

Deal with that, eh?

[bossy22]

21. i love it

you are such a spin artist

you type one thing which is very vague in order to get a response from pro-gunners...then you twist what you said around to try and make us look stupid.

its what you say its what you imply and what you seemed to imply was that the SCOTUS decision is not legitimate in your mind because right wingers are on the court

[iverglas]

23. make you look stupid?

You don't seem to need me.

you type one thing which is very vague in order to get a response from pro-gunners...then you twist what you said around to try and make us look stupid.

Nah.

I just can't figure out how come every time I say something, somebody manages to spin it into SOMETHING THAT ONLY A VERY STUPID PERSON WOULD SAY, when the obvious meaning is quite different.

Only a very, very stupid person would say something that somehow contradicted the notion that "what the Supreme Court says goes".

You pretended to believe that I had said something that contradicted the notion that "what the Supreme Court said goes".

You made that choice even though the meaning of what I said was completely plain in what you read:

the opinion of Alito and Thomas and Roberts and Scalia is what everyone would want their country being organized according to!

I DID NOT SAY "the opinion of Alito et al. isn't what goes", or "isn't it lucky that you can just ignore the opinion of Alito et al.?", or "who cares what Alito et al. say?" or ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING any of those things.

So by pretending that I said something that meant any of that, you pretended to believe that I am a very stupid person.

All you accomplished was to make yourself appear incapable of understanding plain words on a monitor. And as usual, I am left wondering why anyone chooses to portray his/her own self as being that dumb.

[bossy22]

25. again

its not what you say its what you imply

when sharpton spoke at a rally in NYC and said "the white flag that sits atop america will fall" i guess he really just meant that there is a white flag in the middle of the continent, and that one day it will fall over.

you imply things, and the things you imply i base on your history and what i know about you

if any other person made that white flag comment i probably wouldnt have understood what it meant- but since i know the history of al sharpton i kind of can guess at what hes implying

[iverglas]

26. and yet again

all you have to do is explain how this statement:

the opinion of Alito and Thomas and Roberts and Scalia is what everyone would want their country being organized according to!
:sarcasm: , heavy

can be read as IMPLYING that what the Supreme Court of the US says doesn't go!


Maybe you could practise by explaining how, oh,

pizza with anchovies on it is what everyone would want for breakfast!
:sarcasm: , heavy

can be read as IMPLYING that you can't buy pizza in Boise on a Saturday night ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. Deal with that.

You have said here on many occasions that you do have to deal with it. Firearms illegally exported to Canada and when people you know in the US are affected by firearms violence are a couple of your complaints. You have said that it has affected your travel plans within the US. So I think you do have to deal with it. Why else would you be here complaining about it?

David

[iverglas]

38. I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH

what your vile right-wing Supreme Court says.

Grow a clue.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. If it is determined to be an individual right and it makes firearms easier to access,

Then according to your previous arguments you will in fact have to deal with it. Unless of course you leave Canada. Again though if you don't have to deal with it what are you doing here except being an instigator? That is the biggest clue you have given anybody.

David

[iverglas]

42. and it would do that ... how?

If it is determined to be an individual right and it makes firearms easier to access

?

It will make firearms easier to access for, say, residents of DC.

I'm just not seeing how it will make firearms easier to access for anyone looking to acquire them in order to traffic them into Canada. There doesn't seem to be a problem with that at the moment, so easier access of the sort that might result from the upcoming decision doesn't seem to be an issue of immediate concern to me.

It also wouldn't seem likely to affect the already intransigently right-wing anti-human positions taken by the US on the world scene, given, again, that those positions are already quite bad enough.

So here's a suggestion for you.

Mind YOUR own business and stop telling me what is and isn't mine.

I have opinions about your Supreme Court and I'll be expressing them from time to time. Not unlike how quite a number of people here and elsewhere at this site tend to express opinions about things outside their own borders. You might want to DEAL WITH IT, eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. I have opinions about Canadians and I will be expressing them here from time to time.

So you may want to deal with that. It is good to know though that you don't think the upcoming Supreme Court ruling will affect you in any way whatsoever. Just for future reference you probably shouldn't be so self righteous about your business while butting your nose in other peoples.

David

[iverglas]

45. uh ... so the fuck what?

I have opinions about Canadians and I will be expressing them here from time to time.

Bully for you.

I don't recall anyone instructing you otherwise.

I also don't see any parallel between "opinions about Canadians" and opinions about Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and ... that other one. But what the hell. I wouldn't be expecting to see sense from you. Nasty jingoistic ethnocentrism, maybe, eh?

In this particular instance, I responded to an instruction by someone completley other than yourself:

so if they rule it to be an individual right- its an individual right in all practical sense- DEAL WITH IT

An instruction issued to me even though it made no fucking sense in the world to do that, because that there was simply the most supreme disconnect between that instruction and what it was supposedly in response to.

But quite obviously, that party, not me, was the one telling someone what to do, and you are the one, not me, sticking your nose in and telling someone what to do. I'm doing none of it.

So how's about this. You do what you want, and I'll do what I want, and you can just stop fucking whining about it and stop telling me what to do. Howzat?


Just for future reference you probably shouldn't be so self righteous about your business while butting your nose in other peoples.

Just for future reference, I'll do what I fucking well please.

You feel right free to do the same, 'k? Even it if does amount to issuing utterly pointless pronouncements based on utterly false premises, to an audience who is the most completely uninterested.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Actually you did tell me to mind my own business.

It's all good though. Iverglas you know I really am fond of our discussions, at least you have the guts to stay here and hash it out. I think though sometimes you take these discussions way to seriously. My opinions on Canadians are all very good. I have been there on several occasions and once for and extended period of time and found everyone to be quite nice. The scenery is spectacular, the fishing was great. I like Canada. I hope to get back up that way soon. Don't worry I'll leave all my guns at home.


David

[bossy22]

46. hmm

"It also wouldn't seem likely to affect the already intransigently right-wing anti-human positions taken by the US on the world scene, given, again, that those positions are already quite bad enough."

someone would believe that anti-human positions is what this world needs

as some person once said "over population is a problem: but the marines got a solution"

[iverglas]

48. charity begins at home

I am frankly gobsmacked to see people at this site talking about their four and even five children. Unbelievable. Do the marines take care of home business?

[bossy22]

49. maybe

who knows....why don't you email them

[jmg257]

14. The federal govt already decided that (again) and set it into federal law (again).

Public Law No: 109-092
"Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."


Chances are good that the SCOTUS will "only" decide if the effective banning of handguns in DC, and the mandating of the limited methods of keeping rifles & shotguns in DC, violate that indivudal right.

[jody]

15. Guns forum regulars are familiar with that law. SCOTUS could find that the 2nd is a collective right

but most people who follow SCOTUS closely believe it will say the 2nd protects an individual right.

Have a pleasant evening. :hi:

[bossy22]

16. true

im pretty sure they are goin to call it an individual right- just by the way the arguement went and how Kennedy blatantly acknowledged his belief in an individual right

but we shall know soon

[iverglas]

20. gee, what do you bother having courts for??

If the legislative branch has become the arbiter of how your constitution is to be interpreted, why don't you just abolish those courts and save yerselves a whole lot of money??

Here's one you could propose that your Congress include in one of its next bills:

Congress finds the following:
(1) The moon is made of green cheese.
(2) Gravity does not operate to prevent the flight of vehicles to the moon to mine cheese.

That should solve the world hunger problem in no time flat.

Who knew it was so easy?

Just get yer Congress to pronounce, and so it shall be.

How's about if yer Congress says:

(1) The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life without due process.
(2) The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution does not prevent the execution of persons convicted of shoplifting after a fair trial.

Sounds fine to me. And you?

[jmg257]

29. The Supreme court and it's role is fine. It will not decide whether the law

was wrong unless a case comes before it concerning that specific law in question. Until that time (or the law is superseded through further legislation), the laws enacted by Congress are the law of the land.

In your example, you could very well try to travel to the moon for all that free cheese, come back sad and empty handed, and then take it up with the courts to show that Congress was actually wrong and you suffered some injury, and then hope the Supreme Court eventually agrees to hear your case, and that they side with you.


The DC case is "...granted limited to the following question: whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes".

Will the ruling articulate whether the 2nd protects an individual right? Will it say there is an individual right but these laws are "reasonable" enough to meet scrutiny? Will their ruling overturn the federal public law NOT being examined? Will it go so far as to say that people with pop-guns in their pantaloons are perfectly proper? Not sure.

But at least until that time, the represenstatives of the people have passed a law saying the right to arms is individual. Doesn't necessarily make it constitutional, or even correct (although in THIS one re: the 2nd they are), just makes it the law of the land. So it is written...

[iverglas]

30. and back to that point ...

But at least until that time, the represenstatives of the people have passed a law saying the right to arms is individual. Doesn't necessarily make it constitutional, or even correct (although in THIS one re: the 2nd they are), just makes it the law of the land. So it is written...

"Doesn't necessarily make it constitutional, or even correct"

What it IS is meaningless burble. Laws simply do not "say" what is or isn't anything. Laws say what must and must not be done, and what the penalties are for doing things that must not be done, or not doing things that must be done.

The job of the legislative branch is to make laws, not to interpret constitutions. It makes laws according to its understanding of the constitution, supposedly -- at least, it should not make laws that are contrary to the accepted understanding of the constitution, if it is acting in good faith -- but its understanding is of no force or effect.

So what it IS is grandstanding.

[jmg257]

31. Interesting. The declarative statements made in the

"findings" and "purposes" do have some relation to the restrictive part of the law, which in this case is to "prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others." They help explain why the law was passed. The actual "must and must not be dome" come up down in section 3.

Do the earlier observations/purposes have any legal weight, as part of the law? How much weight does the declarative clause have in the 2nd amendment? It too certainly makes a keen observation, and gives a very good reason for the restrictive part - but it isn't what must not be done; supposedly it did carry some legal weight with respect to the necessity of well regulated militias. Or did it?

A bit more then "grandstanding"? I really don't know for sure, but I would think so.


Edit: added bill text link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c1091LyLAt::

[iverglas]

32. "whereases"

These "findings" are similar to the "whereases" I'm used to.

Just a f'r instance -- one of the longest batch of whereases I know of:


http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/o-3.01/whole.html

Official Languages Act
R.S., 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.)
1988, c. 38, assented to 28th July, 1988

An Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada

Preamble

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts established by Parliament in both official languages;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada also provides for guarantees relating to the right of any member of the public to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in either official language;

AND WHEREAS officers and employees of institutions of the Parliament or government of Canada should have equal opportunities to use the official language of their choice while working together in pursuing the goals of those institutions;

AND WHEREAS English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians should, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal opportunities to obtain employment in the institutions of the Parliament or government of Canada;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to achieving, with due regard to the principle of selection of personnel according to merit, full participation of English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians in its institutions;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to cooperating with provincial governments and their institutions to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, to provide services in both English and French, to respect the constitutional guarantees of minority language educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the bilingual character of the National Capital Region and to encouraging the business community, labour organizations and voluntary organizations in Canada to foster the recognition and use of English and French;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages;

NOW, THEREFORE ...

... if anybody reading it is still awake ...


The idea is that the courts are supposted to take those statements of legislative intent into account in interpreting the actual legislation that follows, but principles of interpretation hold that this is only done where there is some ambiguity in the legislation itself.


In your instance, if the legislation were challenged in the courts, the courts would have to determine whether the legislation was constitutional.

I just can't see how the legislative branch's statement of what the constitution means could possibly be binding on the courts. That is the courts' very job: to determine what the constitution means, and whether legislation is compatible with it.

Courts sometimes exhibit deference to legislatures' opinions, about things that are matters of public policy and that involve balancing interests, how to allocate scarce resources, and so on.

But deference to the legislature when it comes to what the constitution means? Judges might as well resign en masse, if all it takes for legislation to be constitutional is for a legislature to say it is.



How much weight does the declarative clause have in the 2nd amendment? It too certainly makes a keen observation, and gives a very good reason for the restrictive part - but it isn't what must not be done; supposedly it did carry some legal weight with respect to the necessity of well regulated militias. Or did it?

Entirely different question, as I'm sure you appreciate. Not remotely similar to a statement by a legislature in a piece of legislation purporting to be an interpretation of a constitution.

On that question, I always like to keep in mind that the mere fact that somebody has strung a bunch of words and punctuation together into a grammatically correct sentence doesn't mean that the sentence itself will have any discernible meaning. A sentence like the second amendment may have to be interpreted so as to give it some meaning, because of the fact that it is part of a constitution; but that doesn't mean that it makes sense.

[jmg257]

33. Thanks - your explanation makes much sense - and helps to better understand

the legal differences between the musings appearing in a legislative act and words in the constitution, where supposedly every word matters. And of course helps further clarify the court's role vs the legislature and their musings, and the weight of the constitution.

Cheers!


BTW, I actually did read all the "whereases" - by the end I was waiting for a brilliant payoff! Darn... :)


typo, terrible flow

[iverglas]

34. oh well then!

Wouldn't want to disappoint you!

Adopt solemn tone, and intone:

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


SHORT TITLE
Short title


1. This Act may be cited as the Official Languages Act.


PURPOSE OF ACT
Purpose


2. The purpose of this Act is to

(a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions;

(b) support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society; and

(c) set out the powers, duties and functions of federal institutions with respect to the official languages of Canada.

One would have thought that much was obvious from the whereases ...

But for the other 108 sections I'll let you read:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/o-3.01/whole.html

[ogsbee]

36. My argument is that read the 17th century way the 2nd amd. makes perfect sense

How much weight does the declarative clause have in the 2nd amendment? It too certainly makes a keen observation, and gives a very good reason for the restrictive part - but it isn't what must not be done; supposedly it did carry some legal weight with respect to the necessity of well regulated militias. Or did it?

< . . . >

On that question, I always like to keep in mind that the mere fact that somebody has strung a bunch of words and punctuation together into a grammatically correct sentence doesn't mean that the sentence itself will have any discernible meaning. A sentence like the second amendment may have to be interpreted so as to give it some meaning, because of the fact that it is part of a constitution; but that doesn't mean that it makes sense.

Read with the different meanings for both "well-regulated" and "militia" the first clause isn't restrictive at all. In today's language I would write the amendment as:

An able, armed populace being necessary to preserve and secure the freedom of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

[iverglas]

39. well, that was useful

Not.

Did you assume I was some sort of moron who needed the New English version of the King James Bible, too?

A hammer being necessary to pound nails into boards, the right of the people to go skiing shall not be infringed.

See? Words, punctuation, grammatical correctness. And nonsense.

[jmg257]

41. There is some cause to think that the declarative clause actually mandates that

the well regulated militias of the several states are required - "being necessary...", and that is not simply given as a reason to why the right is to be secured. Of course the militia clauses in the body of the constitution already cover the permanency of the militias, so it is clear that the main intent of the 2nd was about explicitly limiting the power of the new govt with respect to a right of the people.

This "intent" is also apparent when looking at the emphasis of the original proposal - which is clealry more about securing the right and not...so much about the militia: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The militia observation here deals more with the exception - those thought "religiously scrupulous", then with the right. (this is not to say the right to arms and the effective militia weren't thought to be associated - obviously they were strongly related).

[jmg257]

13. The populace was supposed to become "well regulated" by being (in) the militia,

by mustering on occasion, and by being uniformly armed, organized and disciplined (trained) according to guidelines set buy Congress (Von Steuben's Blue Book, provide themselves & keep certain arms of certain calibers for militia service). All able-bodied males of certain ages, with few exceptions, that make up the state militias gained knowledge & experience with their firearms and with military maneuvers through drilling (and of course "every day" use of arms).

There are no inconsistencies in the 2nd - against itself or any other part of the constitution. The military clauses in Article 2 Section 8 mandate VERY important roles for the Militia of the several states, and mandate how those militia were (thought) to be most effective - they had to be effective, as our freedom depended on it - the freedom of the nation, and of the states. The 2nd confirms this - by stating that the well trained militias are required & permanent - they are necessary, and that the people who make up those militia will never have the right of bearing arms restricted by Congress, or restricted by the states*.

Realize that in the body of the constitution, certain powers re: their militias that had been the states were now given to Congress. Some people/states feared this. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is to insure and protect the states' effective militias, by making sure Congress did not disarm the people, did not abuse/ignore its power granted in Article 2 Section 8 .."To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,...". Since the people were the militia, the right to arms for the people/militia was already secured in this clause. The 2nd re-iterated this security quite explicitly; so the 2nd explains a primary reason for securing the right (a right which already existed), and it went further by declaring it as personal and individual by describing what was secured from infringement - "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...".

*The importance of the Militias recognized & mandated in the Constitution also ensures that the states can not restrict the right to arms, they can not deny to the federal govt that permanent entity specificly responsible for our security and freedom - the effective militias of the several states, when called forth "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".