So we agree that it's not given, granted, conferred... (whatever word you want to us) by the 2nd A. That's a step further than what this thread was intended for (there is a different thread on that topic). But I'm glad we are in agreement.
What part of "I'm only talking about the 2nd A" do you not understand? Is there anything on the OP that you can counter? No? Then my job is done... Thanks for playing. Oh.... and be sure to read the other threads on the topic, where we talk about... The meaning of "keep and bear arms" http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ The historical context behind the approval of the 2nd A http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ And who they are talking about when they say "A well-regulated militia" http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/
You are describing one of the most activist judges in our lifetime: Scalia, legislating from the bench. The 2nd A, as written and approved, guarantees no such thing. As I demonstrate in the OP of this thread, and others on the topic. And reinforced by the fact that you are trying to change the subject, instead of addressing my arguments.
I completely agree. And yet, all this is about discussions in which somebody states that the 2nd A is what guarantees the right to own weapons. But if I were to say, like you do, that they were not talking like adults, I would probably get my post deleted.
No it's not. If it were you would not be changing the subject instead of addressing the OP, which is what this thread is about. If you want to address some other topic, I just gave you a list of threads where they might be more fitting. Bottom line, the 2nd A was written, modified, discussed, modified again, debated, re-debated, rephrased... again and again. Many opposing and diverse views went into the final draft. Assuming that ONE point of view is what defines it, or that all the founders agreed on everything, is not only ludicrous, but displays full ignorance about our history.
What topic was I addressing then? I gave a good example and you’re obviously too scared to address it because it’s not refutable
This man voted on the adoption of the constitution. In other words it’s final form and how it was interpreted at the time of adoption
I don't know what topic you're addressing. The only thing this thread does is to prove that the main clause describing the right of the people to keep and bear arms... is dependent on the absolute clause that indicates that this is because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Let's do this, make your case, and I'll move it to the appropriate thread. But please make sure you are addressing the 2nd A.
Yes. How it was interpreted. It was interpreted as I state on the OP. It's the only possible way the English language allows it to be interpreted: i.e., that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state. Which leaves open the question of whether or not a well-regulated militia is still necessary to the security of a free state. But that's irrelevant because, as a practical matter, we know that Congress is not going to call well regulated militias to defend the country, because they no longer exist. We rely on our armed forces for that.
Well-regulated means in proper working order and maintained. Especially in those times. Not heavily monitored and controlled as you are implying. For instance it was recommended people keep their firearms well-regulated in case of foreign invasion. Here are several examples taken from The Oxford English Dictionary: "The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."" https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm
You’re adding the because for your own argument. It’s not in the amendment and was never interpreted to be there.
No it wasn’t. He literally explained the right to bear arms were not in the hands of the federal or state governments but where he trusted in god it would remain in the hands of the people. You’re interpretation totally contradicts how he interpreted it.
"Well-regulated" means what Article 1, Clause 16 describes. But that's besides the point since we are in agreement that the main clause concerning the right to bear arms is dependent on the absolute clause which states that this is because a well-regulated militia is necessary. That's all this thread is intended to demonstrate. I'm glad we agree.
Of course it is. Read the OP. No English speaker at the time (or even today) would interpret it any other way in any other phrase of the English language. BTW, just for full disclosure, the arguments on the OP were taken from the Amicus Brief submitted by the most prominent linguistics in the country. Not that this, in and of itself, makes them undebatable. But if you are going to debate them, you will need more arguments than what you have submitted.
Why do so many contemporaries and all (I haven't seen any stating a different view) linguistic experts agree with me. The argument, of course, is an absolute logical fallacy on both sides. But if you believe it works for one direction, you must also believe it works for the other. Apparently you didn't know that the US Code did not EXIST when the 2nd A was drafted. But now you know.
Then why is it that a law graduate at the time of adoption interpreted it completely differently than you
Among other possible reasons, the most likely is because this law graduate doesn't know crap about linguistics.
