Yuku free message boards

Norsewulf wrote:

---

Without the prefatory clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", there wouldn't be any constitutional right to bear arms.

Would you explain what you mean by that?

Sure. The whole point of the wording is to form a militia. If they had intended to have a standing army, they would have just given the right to bear arms without the prefatory clause.

That clause is the defining clause of the wording and defining clauses are meant to limit the antecedent. The antecedent is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

An antecedent is word or phrase that is replaced by a pronoun later in a sentence, or in a subsequent sentence.
Example: Jane went to the store and she bought some bread.
"Jane" is the antecedent of "she".

It's also a clause.

an⋅te⋅ced⋅ent   /ˌæntəˈsidnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-tuh-seed-nt] Show IPA

Use antecedent in a Sentence

-adjective

1.	preceding; prior: an antecedent event.

-noun

2.	a preceding circumstance, event, object, style, phenomenon, etc.

3.	antecedents, a. ancestors. b. the history, events, characteristics, etc., of one's earlier life: Little is known about his birth and antecedents.

4.

Grammar. a word, phrase, or clause, usually a substantive, that is replaced by a pronoun or other substitute later, or occasionally earlier, in the same or in another, usually subsequent, sentence. In Jane lost a glove and she can't find it, Jane is the antecedent of she and glove is the antecedent of it.

What you wrote makes no sense. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is not replaced by any other term, and is not the antecedent of anything.

You are obviously wrong. It's modified by the prefatory clause. You seem to not see the clause.


It's very plain that unless you are forming a militia, you have no constitutional right to those arms.

How would people go about forming a militia if they were not allowed to have arms? It wouldn't be much of a militia, would it?

Right, but there is no militia, so that means the right that is contingent on having a militia doesn't stand as written.

Linguists disagree with judges on the matter.

I was not aware of that. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has the final say on the legal interpretation.

I don't think you can consider any ruling by the Court to be final. They need to amend the constitution to make it permanent.

Scalia decided that the prefatory clause didn't matter. That's silly.

No, Scalia didn't decide that the prefatory clause didn't matter, the court found that the Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. "The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

And that "the prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved."


It's archaic and doesn't pertain to the reality of today where guns are used to murder people by the tens of thousands. Scalia is not an expert on words and grammar. He's a right wing judge.

The NRA leaves out the prefatory clause because it's the weak link in their argument.

Actually it's the weak link in your argument since the Supreme Court has ruled on it and their interpretation supports the position of the NRA.

The Supreme Court also ruled that blacks and native Americans had no rights that a white man had to respect. I don't think that is still the law of the land.

Scalia even brought up slavery and said that without guns, the fight against slavery would have been hard.

This is from the majority opinion (it wasn't unanimous and it also wasn't a ruling on the actual amendment)

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter...

I love the wording. It had to be written by Scalia. He's such a charmer.

It's an old amendment that has been overtaken by progess in firearms and society in general.

It's funny that linguists are the experts in use of language, but it's not surprising that conservative judges would treat that as a triviality.