“Why The Second Amendment Has a Preamble: Original Public Meaning and the Political Culture of Written Constitutions in Revolutionary America”
“What is special about the Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause — a preamble, if you will”
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
“The first clause of the Second Amendment, the preamble…”
(Note that at least two of these three citations are from pro-gun articles.)
Now you have.
You’ll have to forgive me, I haven’t read such riveting work as “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” before nor do I get my opinion from random pieces on guns . org or whatever, lol. The UCLA piece looks interesting.
I’ll stick with what Antonin Scalia had to say about the prefatory clause or the preamble if you prefer and the operative clause in DC V Heller.
Usually yes, but not always. Every revolution needs martyrs who failed early on to stir up outrage and rally adherents while codying the lore around “martyrs”.
Boston Massacre, Easter Rising in Dublin, Battleship Potemkin…
Lol, ya, great minds think alike 
Remember the Alamo
I think history is written by the ultimate victors. But if you want to talk about a loss making an entire population cohesive (December 7 1941 much?). I agree.
Thats just willful ignorance. If you were actually willing to listen, you would have seen that the right to rebellion is already established in numerous state constitutions.
Ergo, your position that it is nowhere to be found is wrong, and you are incorrect in stating that the 2A is not to arm an insurrection against a government that the people have decided is tyrannical.
Much like micro-stamping, it’s a joke. Even if you get the “one owner” technology to work properly, the costs become ridiculous. It basically prices the people who need firearms for protection the most out of the market.
LOL 
Now that you’ve posted the law review, maybe you’ll read the law review I posted earlier. I’ll re-link it for you below. This is specifically on the history of the 2nd amendment and the founders’ views of the right to bear arms. Being that it both comes directly from their mouths and also follows from their key political influences (Blackstone, etc), this really is necessary reading.
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr
Regarding electronic locks on guns-- that’s a talk I could be open to having, but I would need to be convinced. In general authentication tech is not perfect, can still be beaten/jammed/bypassed (which is why smartphones still recommend a secondary security measure beyond fingerprint) and it is not a good idea usually speaking to require a power source (which may fail) on something that is needed in an emergency for self defense. Generally speaking, the simpler the mechanics the better for self defense use of any kind.
However, if foolproof it would reduce stolen guns being used. Whether it would reduce other types of gun crime is an open question I think.
Hah! Most excellent!
I lnow you could read it without the history, but I really think the Britiah history is important to understand the customs, culture, and political background the founders be from.
In regard to the founding fathers’ beliefs regarding the people’s right to throw off a tyrannical government, perhaps a brief perusal of the Declaration of Independence would be in order here. Then again, if someone skipped that document to the point where it’s necessary to point it out then it’s a bit silly to engage with them, or go to the trouble of opening The Federalist Papers. I’ll be the first to admit that actually codifying that right would be more than ballsy, and the 2nd Amendment does stop short of that. That purpose and its implications, however, are there in black in white.
Of course, this argument might as well be about banning abortion since SCOTUS made it clear in Heller that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It takes someone trained to manipulate words beyond any meaning to find otherwise, but that’s pretty much all liberal constitutional “scholars” these days (as well as those armed only with google). It took me less than four weeks into my 1L Con Law class to realize that much of Con Law is nothing more than left wing attempts at changing the meaning of words. The other half is religious right attempts to do the same. But hey, they’re both elitists looking to subvert others’ rights. Something that makes the 2nd Amendment all that much more important. The people are sovereign.
If the left had any sense then following Heller they would have shifted gears to focus on intelligent regulation, but that would mean learning something about firearms and dropping their silly focus on cosmetics. The ILA does an excellent job and will continue to get my contributions. I suppose that’s why the left is so shrill about calling us “gun nuts.” When all they have is ad hominems then I can only assume they know they’re FoS.
Your sarcasm and disdain are ironic, because that piece is considered the seminal work in the development of the so-called Standard Model of gun rights; ie, the (very modern) idea that the intent of the 2A was to guarantee an individual’s right to gun ownership. In other words, it is THE piece of scholarship underpinning jurisprudence consistent with your world-view regarding guns.
Lol, indeed.
No, that’s me letting you make your own argument.
If you’re saying there are states that make explicit the right to rebel, how on earth does that help you regarding the US Constitution, in which no such explicit statements occur? Doesn’t that fact actually hurt your argument?
Pretty sure I never said it was ‘nowhere to be found,’ but to be more explicit: It is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution generally, nor in the 2A specifically. Better?
No faith in the market, huh?
I’ve read it before. It’s revisionist dreck, pure and simple.
It’s not for nothing that the 2A was called ‘the lost amendment’ for almost 200 years. It’s meaning was considered so unambiguous, so straightforward, as to make the 2A uninteresting as a subject of scholarship. The notion that the 2A was written to protect individual gun rights is of extremely recent vintage. (Don’t believe me? Ask Judge Bork.)
If you’re open to an article dismantling the scholastic underpinnings of the Standard Model:
If ‘foolproof’ is the requisite standard, we can have no technology of any kind (including pointy sticks, because they can break).
Quite the contrary. I am opposed to government compelling the market to sell only a particular device. “Smart guns” are on the market already how are the sales?
So, you oppose all the myriad safety standards auto manufacturers, baby-crib manufacturers, food producers, etc, are required to meet?
Also, what a surprise:
Super…
Yes.
No it doesn’t hurt it at all, because the 10th limits the federal powers to those explicitly granted to the fed.
Also, before it gets too far- The NRA is covered under our freedom of association.
Those pesky obstacles (to gun control). Its like a bunch of obstructionists wrote those documents.
So, you believe the SCOTUS would rule that a constitutional right to engage in armed insurrection exists because of the 10th? If so, how would that be squared with the Constitutional law regarding Treason?
No one has suggested otherwise.
No. I mean that that right is owned by the state and the people of that state. It is not granted to the federal gov. to determine whether it exists or not. It exists. In the states constitution. The government of a state exists as a manifestation of the will of its people. The states govern themselves, and grant specific powers to the federal govt., the power of rights and will does not flow from the Fed to the people. It flows from the people to the Fed.
I think you may also be confusing treason with the right to legitimate rebellion.
edit: Bear in mind, these are my views based on my limited reading of these things.
@thunderbolt23 or @Jewbacca will probably have a good laugh reading through it, so take it all with a grain of salt.
I’m pretty sure that duty–determining who ‘owns’ a given right–is precisely the purview of the SCOTUS.
Is there some sort of objective way to distinguish between the two?