The government is CORRUPT, yet some of you still think it's okay to hand your wallet over to them every payday.
You raise good points with regard to how the second amendment could have been drafted to make the the preamble phrase a condition. And I do respect Scalia's skillful use of language. To turn your own and Scalia's arguments on their heads, why do you suppose the drafters of the second amendment bothered to include the preamble phrase at all, if the intention of the amendment was to protect the right to bear arms unrelated to service in the militia? That is in fact were Scalia might have drawn on his talents and twisted meaning to mean what he wants it to mean. He wasn't able to because the meaning of the introductory phrase is clear and unambiguous. He had only one option, and that was to get rid of the introductory phrase altogether by splitting the sentence in two at the comma. He did this so skillfully that he was able to get half of the eight other justices to go along with him. But in doing so he made a mockery of his claimed philosophy of originalism. Why? Because originally the Constitution read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of . . ." To me the idea of originalism applied to a 200 plus year old constitution is and absurdity, it leads you to the same place the Bible, the Koran and the Torah lead you: to insanity! In a modern world what was believed centuries ago may now be understood to have been clearly false, or what made sense then may not necessarily make sense today. By his selective rejection of originalism in the Heller case, Scalia shows that his adherence to the philosophy of originalism is malleable. I can respect that! But why can't he just admit it instead of tirelessly asserting he is a "strict constructionist", when clearly he is not. _____________________ Scalia might have chosen to leave the Amendment intact and argue that the State militias at the time were intended to defend the State's interest against federal encroachment, and that the equivalent applies today, where individual arms bearing is intended as a defense against federal encroachment, despite how ridiculous that may sound. There is excellent historical support for this view, and Scalia touches on it. But to take that path would have created another problem for Scalia. This had to do with what type of militia, federal or state, was being referred to in the Amendment, and that was historically unclear. Scalia touches briefly, in his opinion, on this point. It must be that Scalia recognized that there was a can of worms to be opened that could weaken his intended argument. He must have concluded that the best way to avoid opening the can was to jettison the introductory phrase altogether, which he did with consummate skill.
In Statutory Rape Case Involving Teacher And Student, Judge Asks Court Room, “What Young Man Would Not Jump On That Candy?”
I find it amusing that you did not know that you can use an EBT card on a cruise ship, and that many people who do not take public benefits find this inappropriate.