those who hate our constitutional rights are the freaks. and what is really bad is that most of the gun control zealots aren't even honest about their motivations.
"James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote the Second Amendment. He began his studies of Latin at the age of 12 and had mastered Latin and Greek by the time he entered the College of New Jersey, now Princeton University. He would have been fully aware that he was using an ablative absolute construction. "He wrote the amendment to ensure that state militias, and not a standing army, would protect the union from insurrection and invasion. A well-regulated militia was a form of defense more compatible with liberty than a standing army, which many feared might be used to impose tyranny." https://www.santafenewmexican.com/o...cle_8c0ee9f5-bce9-55d0-8d82-a43ded2e20b8.html The amendment says nothing about the use of guns for private purposes.
Your pleading to authority fallacy does not sway me. In any case, their is plenty of English scholars who have state the opposite of your opinion on the sentence structure of the second amendment. As an example, please look up “the unabridged second amendment” by j Neil schulman. He cites Roy copperrud, who was also anti gun ownership mind you, but had the intellectual courage to face that the second amendment is an individual right as written.
it quite specifically does I'm afraid..................."the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
Never heard of it. Now... did you have something to say about the topic of this thread? Or were you just trying to derail it to try and hide the fact that I am obviously right? If you don't, that's one more pro-guns advocate who is unable to rebut my point. Each one of those I get increases the credibility of my arguments on the OP. So if this was all you had to say, I thank you for your help in proving my case.
Did you miss the part where I explicitly stated that I was NOT pleading it? I only mentioned the experts because you claimed that the arguments were mine. Much as I would love to take credit for them, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to do so. There are? How significant that you cannot provide any quote or link to rebut any of my arguments? If you have anything other than "go do my research for me", let's hear it. Otherwise, thanks for helping me make my case ...
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm I didn’t think I would have to do your google searching for you, because I told you exactly what to seek out, but since you are gonna play games, here ya go!
you're not obviously right. You are one of those gun banning advocates who knows that the second amendment prohibits gun bans, magazine limits, one gun per month nonsense etc, and you try to work backwards to pretend that the founders really supported all the anti gun nonsense you want.
Careful not to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back. Meanwhile, you never refuted my rebuttal at Post # 85: -------------------------------- I've seen more than a few attempts to distort the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment but if I understand yours correctly, you are asserting that one must be a militia member in order to keep and bear arms. In order to properly interpret the writings of the Founding Fathers, one must read and understand their sentiments based on their quotes relating to the issues at hand. So, what is meant by these men when they refer to: "the militia"? Perhaps no one answers that question more simply or more briefly than George Mason in 1788: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 (1) Even a cursory knowledge of the Founding Fathers reveals that few people recognized the value of an armed citizenry more than those men. Because of today's domestic unrest, gratuitous crime and encroaching government overreach, it is every bit as important that today's law abiding citizens remain armed now as it was in the 1700s (1) "Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers" https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
That quote contains no information about the purpose. The preamble does. A well-regulated militia securing a free state is not a private purpose.
the quote quite specifically states the people have the right to keep and bear arms. That is the purpose. nor is it a requirement for the people to keep and bear arms. thus, you have no point.
Should the Captain decide to port..... Should John decide to reach the ceiling... Should the students decide to undertake a project... Should the people decide to form a militia.... Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When was the militia ended? Who did it, and how did they do it? If the militia was not disestablished, your argument would appear to be moot.
No idea what you mean by the militia being ended. The "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Constitution was made irrelevant when we had enough confidence that military forces would be most appropriate to defend the security of a free state. That's the point when a well regulated militia was NOT necessary to the security of a free state. The 2nd A became superfluous. Just like when enough military bases being established made the 3rd A superfluous. BTW, that is not the topic of this thread. This discussion is about the grammar in the 2nd A. To understand what it MEANS. Your queston would be more relevant to the following thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/
awesome. then show us the constitutional amendment abolishing the militia. you can not demonstrate a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. and your premise of this thread was completely refuted on page 1.
If you state that such amendment exists, YOU show it. Still... that's irrelevant, not only to this thread, but to any argument I have ever made here or in any discussion dealing with the 2nd A I have ever been involved in. Not the purpose or topic of this thread. How would you know? I have seen nothing to indicate that you even understand the premise of this thread.
oh no, you aren't going to get away with your claim. you claimed the militia is no longer necessary and it's been abolished. Show us the amendment doing so. it's ****ing hilarious when YOU bring up arguments, have them refuted, and then claim that what YOU brought up is irrelevant. it's a claim you made, in this thread. uh, because I and several others refuted it on page 1. which is an indication that it's time to see your eye doctor.
That's a matter of opinion. And not the topic of this thread. If you have anything to say about the REAL topic of this thread, say it. Though I doubt that very much given that, other than idiotic evasives like "that was rebutted", you have contributed absolutely nothing to this debate. You have one last chance. Show us that you actually did have something to contribute to this topic. Rebut the OP, if you can. Otherwise you will have shown that responding to any of your posts is a waste of time. I do see you withdraw your claim that an amendment exists. That's a start....
its hilarious when YOU bring up a topic, get refuted, then you run away screaming "not the topic not the topic" lol. already have. the premise of the thread was directly refuted on page 1. I've directly refuted your claims in this and every other gun thread. pretending your premise has not been demolished doesn't actually make reality go away.
I refit d the topic on page 1. Clearly not. We are 13 pages in and you can’t comprehend that your premise was destroyed in the first page. I’m happy to refute another silly premise on this topic. Just post a new thread.
Not sure what it is you want to discuss. If you want to discuss the meaning of "... the right to bear arms" you can do so here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ But that's another thread dealing with the semantics of the 2nd A. If you want to discuss the history behind the 2nd A, do so here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ You choose. But I do ask you to stay on topic. If you want to discuss anything else and don't want to open a thread, let me know and, if it's of any interest, I might start researching it and open the thread myself.
All of this has been refuted, as you are perfectly aware. Your interpretations have no basis in law or in grammar. It’s why you’ve lost every single time in court.
“I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day." - George Mason Of course, pro-gun sources tend to conveniently omit that sentence. Typical gun apologetics.
It doesn't matter if you omit or include the last phrase, the meaning stays the same: the militia are the "whole people". If you're afraid of guns, simply don't own one and quit trying to disarm the rest of us.
