SCOTUS tells Chicago to shove it.

[flash9286]

Eh? Cite me any evidence at all that indicates "the framers" considered the 2nd Amendment to be anything BUT an individual right. Not saying it doesn't exist, but as you're the one making the claim you should provide the evidence.

The prefactory clause for one. There is also no mention of an individual right being discussed in the congressional debates over the bill of rights. The original draft of the 2nd amendment stated “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.” The draft language suggests that the framers saw this essentially as an amendment about the militia.

And why should I have to present evidence, you are the one trying to invalidate laws passed by elected officials.

[David Floyd]

The prefactory clause was simply a statement of one of the reasons the populace needed to be armed. The "militia" of the time was the non-military adult population, and the Constitution didn't provide for a permanent standing army. Additionally, "well-regulated" in the context of the time did NOT mean "regulated by the government".

Most importantly, though, it was a very simple point of law at the time that prefactory clauses were not limiting clauses.

The point about a militia being necessary to a free state is a simple one. The Framers saw a standing army as being dangerous to freedom. The "free state" language had at least as much to do with providing a check on federal power as it did national defense.

And why should I have to present evidence, you are the one trying to invalidate laws passed by elected officials.

No I'm not. SCOTUS did that. They provided evidence as part of their decision. Pwned.

Additionally, the whole point of judicial review is to prevent "elected officials" from being able to pass any law they want.

[flash9286]

Most importantly, though, it was a very simple point of law at the time that prefactory clauses were not limiting clauses.

It is not simple at all. Prefatory clauses did limit operative clauses in the 1700s, because they exposed the will of the legislator. From Ryall v. Rowles, 1 Ves. Sr. 348

"I shall not scruple to declare that I am strongly inclined to be of opinion with Lord Holt and my lord chief baron, that this clause is to be restrained by the preamble; and differ from Lord Cowper in the case of Copeman and Gallant."

Ryall expressly overruled the case relied on by the Sutherland treatise the majority in Heller relies on.
From, A New Law-Dictionary.... The Sixth Edition. The Law-Proceedings being done into English, with Great Additions and Improvements, to this time (1750) by Giles Jacob :

The Preamble of a Statute which is the Beginning thereof, going before, is as it were a Key to the Knowledge of it, and to open the Intent of the Makers of the Act; it shall be deemed true, and therefore good Arguments may be drawn from the same.

From Blackstone's Commentaries (1765):

Thus, the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament

You will also notice that Scalia has to cite to 19th century treatise on statutory construction to interpret a document drafted in the 1700s. That is because it was treatises by Blackstone and Jefferson and others gave more importance to prefatory clauses than Scalia wanted to admit.

The "militia" of the time was the non-military adult population, and the Constitution didn't provide for a permanent standing army. Additionally, "well-regulated" in the context of the time did NOT mean "regulated by the government".

The point about a militia being necessary to a free state is a simple one. The Framers saw a standing army as being dangerous to freedom. The "free state" language had at least as much to do with providing a check on federal power as it did national defense.

All of this is consistent with a collective right, not an individual right.

No I'm not. SCOTUS did that. They provided evidence as part of their decision. Pwned.

SCOTUS also said the 14th amendment protects the right to have an abortion. I guess you are o.k. with that too.

[David Floyd]

It is not simple at all. Prefatory clauses limit operative clauses when language is ambiguous. From Ryall v. Rowles, 1 Ves. Sr. 348

The language is not ambiguous. Explain to me what is ambiguous about the 2nd Amendment's primary clause. The prefactory clause provides A reason, but not the ONLY reason, why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. As a simple example that should provide some insight to the mindsets of the Framers, read the 9th Amendment (paraphrase: just because a right is expressly listed shouldn't imply that other rights do not exist).

All of this is consistent with a collective right, not an individual right.

How do you figure? I seriously doubt the term "collective right" had even entered the lexicon at that time.

Additionally, firearm ownership at the time was simply assumed. Why in the world do you imagine that the Framers intended to empower the federal government to take away firearms from individuals?

SCOTUS also said the 14th amendment protects the right to have an abortion. I guess you are o.k. with that too.

Yes. I'm not comfortable with HOW SCOTUS got there, relying on Griswold v. Connecticut and incorporation, etc., but I am 100% comfortable with abortion being none of the federal government's business.

[flash9286]

The language is not ambiguous. Explain to me what is ambiguous about the 2nd Amendment's primary clause. The prefactory clause provides A reason, but not the ONLY reason, why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. As a simple example that should provide some insight to the mindsets of the Framers, read the 9th Amendment (paraphrase: just because a right is expressly listed shouldn't imply that other rights do not exist).

"Bear arms" was used in 1700s as a term of art referring to militias. The ambiguity is whether "bear arms" conferred an individual right independent of militias. Looking at the preamble it is clear it doesn't.

How do you figure? I seriously doubt the term "collective right" had even entered the lexicon at that time.

Additionally, firearm ownership at the time was simply assumed. Why in the world do you imagine that the Framers intended to empower the federal government to take away firearms from individuals?

The amendment was meant to protect the federal government from destroying state militias. The amendment says nothing about an individual right to bear arms not connected with militias. You do realize that McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the right and applied it to the states? That is, the federal government told the states they had to respect an individual right's to have guns.

Yes. I'm not comfortable with HOW SCOTUS got there, relying on Griswold v. Connecticut and incorporation, etc., but I am 100% comfortable with abortion being none of the federal government's business.

Roe v. Wade made it the federal goverment's business. The SCOTUS (a branch of the federal goverment) told the states they couldn't deny a women's right to an abortion. Beforehand, as far as I know, the states individually regulated abortion without interference from the federal government.

[chequita guevara]

The word welfare is a joke because it implies a governmental nightmare of reverse consequences, innefficiencies, all culminating in a lack of results not because of a lack of desire to help the poverty stricken.

Private philanthropy is an equal if not more important measure of willingness to help those less fortunate as regardless of its effectiveness (it may be equally frought with inefficiencies as a governmental run program) it is conscious decision to give of what is yours.

Private philanthropy has fallen through the basement, and was never as important as government aid. Most of it was geared towards churches and foundations, not helping the poor.

The reason why government aid in the U.S. fails is because it isn't anywhere close to enough. If your house is burning down, a garden hose just isn't going to cut it. The only way to survive on Federal aid in this country is to lie, cheat, and steal.

Good welfare benefits help the vast majority of society. It lowers crime rates, making expensive policing and imprisonment unnecessary. It also means unemployment isn't such a freaking disaster, which means the rest of us can fight for better wages and benefits from our jobs since standing up for yourself won't cost you your home if your boss decides to can you.

[MrFun]

I do have a question. All this talk about private philanthropy and government welfare programs - to what extent do either of them lift people in poverty, OUT of poverty and UP the socio-economic ladder?

Or do most of these programs simply help poor people avoid starving or freezing to death while permanently living in poverty?

[chequita guevara]

It depends on the country.

Private charity has never been enough. That is why reformers turned to state charities as a means of alleviating the suffering of the poor.

In many countries, state aid, while it won't lift you out of poverty, is enough so you don't have to worry about losing your home, having your utilities shut off, going hungry, or going without health care. Not so much in our country.

While in other counties, you aren't lifted out of poverty, there are secondary effects. One, much lower crimes rates. It's not so bad living in a poor neighborhood if you aren't always afraid of being mugged, robbed, raped or murdered. Also, as I mentioned before, decent welfare benefits push overall wages and work benefits up. The vast majority of society benefits.

[N35t0r]

I do have a question. All this talk about private philanthropy and government welfare programs - to what extent do either of them lift people in poverty, OUT of poverty and UP the socio-economic ladder?

Or do most of these programs simply help poor people avoid starving or freezing to death while permanently living in poverty?

That depends entirely on the conditions in the country, and how easy is to get into the economic ladder. With 20% unemployment, there's slim chance you'll manage to find a job if you have no skills.

On the other hand, if you're earning over twice the minimum wage for not working, then you don't really need a job.