Yep, no point in a discussion with the socioeconomiclly disadvantaged SJW alt.
Put the alt on block LK, it is a waste of time.
Which military were the founding fathers discussing there? A standing military?
And was that intended to be a standing army? Did they warn, at all, about the dangers of a standing army?
and how many founding fathers discussed the need for armed civilians to be able to lend to defense against invasion and insurrection?
Considering about 231k men served in the continental army and another 145k in militias, you can see that militias made up a huge portion of men that served as well as their contribution to asymmetrical warfare and line of communication disruption.
This is real simple. The law actually signed & passed is a single sentence with subject of the well-regulated Militia (proper noun no plural), and predicate of bearing arms in that context. I apologize ahead of time that I won't be going into the specifics of grade-school grammar if this is still confusing.
The law isn't some fanciful wish fulfillment of what they *really* meant so you can own guns outside of this well-regulated Militia. Personally I really want a pony, but I'm probably not going to get it even if every founder said in their dairy that every american really deserved one.
Whoever it is he's enjoying himself, that much I can tell you.Who is your alt?
Don't even bother, it's an alt.
Put the alt on block LK, it is a waste of time.
Wonder why he won't answer who he is.
That is rich coming from an obvious alt account.Ignoring factual reality is what makes these people what they are. They're the students who think the teacher is wrong for marking down their 2+2=22 answers, so their lives revolve around consuming & regurgitating agreeable rhetoric.
It's everything responsible parents teach kids not to be, but here we are. Therefore it's the duty of responsible adults to shame this behavior for what it is, so it can be properly considered a joke to avoid any influence on public policy.
So what is your alt?Ignoring factual reality is what makes these people what they are. They're the students who think the teacher is wrong for marking down their 2+2=22 answers, so their lives revolve around consuming & regurgitating agreeable rhetoric.
It's everything responsible parents teach kids not to be, but here we are. Therefore it's the duty of responsible adults to shame this behavior for what it is, so it can be properly considered a joke to avoid any influence on public policy.
This is real simple. The law actually signed & passed is a single sentence with subject of the well-regulated Militia (proper noun no plural), and predicate of bearing arms in that context. I apologize ahead of time that I won't be going into the specifics of grade-school grammar if this is still confusing.
The law isn't some fanciful wish fulfillment of what they *really* meant so you can own guns outside of this well-regulated Militia. Personally I really want a pony, but I'm probably not going to get it even if every founder said in their dairy that every american really deserved one.
The text of the Second Amendment varies. The version passed by Congress capitalizes "militia" and follows it with a comma. The version ratified by the states omits the capitalization and comma.
Capitalization was not standardized in the 18th century, and certainly was not reserved for proper nouns. Some writers capitalized all nouns. Others capitalized nouns they considered important. Most nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
But please, don't let your extraordinary ignorance stop you from lecturing about the true meaning of a document you've clearly never even read.
On the topic of general amendments, starting with the first Amendment, please point out those nouns capitalized which aren't specific in their context. For example, Congress or Government are, but people, religion, etc, aren't. To further illustrate, the first sentence of this paragraph is written in such a style, where generic reference to "amendments" generally wouldn't be, but first Amendment would.
So it's hardly arbitrary as you suggest, and that's evident from simply reading the thing which I believe was your own advice before criticizing others.
In english, a capitalized singular word is a proper noun. What that means is taught in elementary school, too.
The law actually signed & passed is a single sentence with subject of the well-regulated Militia (proper noun no plural)
Haha. Your attempt at diversion is almost as weak as your knowledge of 18th century orthography. Your claims:
Categorically false. Common nouns were routinely capitalized in the 18th century. This is not a debatable point.
Also false. The "law actually signed & passed" by the states rendered "militia," "state," and "arms" in lowercase.
It's pretty clear the capitalized version, which is the federal law refers to specific instances (ie proper noun reference) like the Congress & the Government & the State & the Militia correctly or similar objects of specific emphasis while not capitalizing generic noun references.
The "Militia" is the military. ... The well established kind they fought the revolution with.
Odd that your list omits other capitalized words that inarguably don't "refer to specific instances," like "Arms," "War," and "Oath." Must have been an oversight.
Also odd that you've repeatedly written "the" Militia, whereas that actual amendment text uses "a." Another oversight, no doubt.
Are you planning to admit that you were wrong when you said, "In english, a capitalized singular word is a proper noun," or are you just going to continue ignoring your error?
Wrong again. The First American Regiment was the military, and it predated the Second Amendment by nearly a decade. The militias were state-organized reserves that consisted of "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States." The Dick Act later reclassified the militia into organized (National Guard) and reserves (all able-bodied men of a certain age).
The American Revolution was fought by a combination of regulars (the Continental Army) and state militias.
english rules
Let's put it this way, how would you explain to someone like LegendKiller the concept of capitalizing specific references?
Regardless, as the predicate to a sentence whose subject is the well-regged military force, it's crystal clear that it's not talking about random individuals outside that context who want a gun.
Your belief that standardized capitalization rules existed in the 18th century is just further proof of your ignorance. Capitalization and punctuation style differed wildly among writers, and was often erratic even within a single writer's works.
That's why Jefferson's, Matlack's, and Dunlap's copies of the Declaration of Independence use completely different capitalization styles. That's why there are at least eight differing official transcriptions of the Second Amendment, and the final version ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson contains no capitalized nouns. That's why almost all nouns are capitalized in the Constitution, but relatively few are in the Bill of Rights.
Please, pick up a history book before further embarrassing yourself.
I wouldn't, because "the concept of capitalizing specific references"--much like your claim that "a capitalized singular word is a proper noun"--was pulled out of your ass.
"A well regulated militia" isn't a "specific reference," anyway. Do you not understand the purpose of indefinite articles?
Haha. If you think that "militia" is the subject of the sentence, your grasp of the English language is even more tenuous than I thought.
Your belief that standardized capitalization rules existed in the 18th century is just further proof of your ignorance. Capitalization and punctuation style differed wildly among writers, and was often erratic even within a single writer's works.
That's why Jefferson's, Matlack's, and Dunlap's copies of the Declaration of Independence use completely different capitalization styles. That's why there are at least eight differing official transcriptions of the Second Amendment, and the final version ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson contains no capitalized nouns. That's why almost all nouns are capitalized in the Constitution, but relatively few are in the Bill of Rights.
Please, pick up a history book before further embarrassing yourself.
I wouldn't, because "the concept of capitalizing specific references"--much like your claim that "a capitalized singular word is a proper noun"--was pulled out of your ass.
"A well regulated militia" isn't a "specific reference," anyway. Do you not understand the purpose of indefinite articles?
Haha. If you think that "militia" is the subject of the sentence, your grasp of the English language is even more tenuous than I thought.
With ~zero mental effort and assuming no sophisticated grammatical knowledge, in a span of several sentences we easily identified two consistent rules for capitalization in the relevant material. IOW, what you claim to be impossible or whatever was just trivially demonstrated.
Amateur sentence analysis
If we are going to reference historical use of grammar then feel free to read this:
http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf
As mentioned there are similar types of words/things similarly capitalized. As explained, language rules by definition consist of handling these similar patterns.No, you just begged the question. You concluded that "militia" is capitalized because it's a "specific reference," and that "militia" is a "specific reference" because it's capitalized.
Does this "baffle with bullshit" technique ever work out for you?
Interpret it however you want. "Militia" is still not the subject and "bearing arms" still not the predicate.
Anyway, it's amusing that someone with no knowledge of history, orthography, or Constitutional law calls the Second Amendment "trivial English," yet legal scholars, historians, and linguists have still not reached a consensus about its meaning.
I actually have already read it. Baron submitted it or something similar as an amicus brief to DC v. Heller. The linguistic analysis is interesting, though it's worth noting that other linguists and historians have interpreted the amendment differently, as has the Supreme Court.
To be clear, I haven't made any statement about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted. I'm just responding to this absurd "proper noun," "specific reference," "I don't know what a subject or predicate is" nonsense being spewed by a pretentious asshat. This capitalization-based interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the silliest I've ever read.
However, if it's your purpose to be pedantic, well-reg Militia is the subject (first noun clause) of that complex sentence, of which the latter half is predicated on.
For example, Scalia blatantly concocts new legal/english grammar to force an individual rights interpretation.
Wow, you really don't know what a subject or predicate is. Thanks for the laugh.
The "collective right" interpretation was unanimously rejected by the Court.
Stevens' dissent states that "the question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a collective right or an individual right. Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."
Breyer wrote that "the Amendment protects an individual righti.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred."
Is there any subject that you aren't completely clueless about?
It was rejected after 100+ years as being recognized as collective right. Also it was 5-4 decision not a unanimous decision. Lets not even get into scalias inconsistent use of originalism.
The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home. Ante, at 57; see also ante, at 5455. But what sense does this approach make? According to the majoritys reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun. On the majoritys reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so.