That's what I thought. That you already knew and was just playing the disingenuous game... Glad I didn't waste my time. Wrong! The right to bear arms in defense of a free state was denied by Trump for transgenders. They were not allowed to go to Afghanistan or Syria or... wherever they could go to defend us from terrorists who threaten our free state. But you knew this already. I'm not wasting my time playing the disingenuous game anymore.
My induction was jeopardized because of a spot on my lungs. I was unsure for several months whether I would be allowed to serve. According to your logic, men with spots on their lungs were denied the opportunity to defend our freedom by serving in Vietnam. Some were denied their opportunity to defend our freedom because of bone spurs. A right does not include a selection process. There is no right to join the military. At some point, you should really realize how absurd your argument is.
No. According to MY logic, there is no "individual right" hidden in the 2nd A of any type. In any case, you equating being transgender with a disease is all we need to know. That type of argument was also once used to bar women and gays from the military.
Entry into the military is not a right. Plain and simple. There are numerous reasons why entry can be denied. You are making stuff up as a last resort diversion. I never once equated transgender with a disease.
You hail yourself as some kind of great research expert, but with regard to the Second Amendment the only "research" that needs to be done is to read -- guess what -- the Second Amendment itself! Its meaning is quite clear, even to those of us who aren't self-proclaimed "lexicographers". All lib-Left wing parsing of the wording of the amendment notwithstanding, the indisputable, bedrock declaration of the sentence remains, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The peripheral issue about a "militia", which those in your faction use to infer that the possession of firearms must be limited to only those who are in a state-authorized military force, does nothing to diminish the right of the people -- in the military or not -- to possess and use firearms! Parenthetically, when directly translated into a more precise language than English -- like German -- the meaning is equally clear: "das Recht des Volkes, Waffen zu behalten und zu tragen, darf nicht verboten werden." Unfortunately for Germans of the 1930's, they had no 'Second Amendment', and Adolf Hitler -- much like today's America-hating radical Democrats -- was determined not to allow the German people to possess firearms! . "Hey, what do they need guns for? They've got ME to protect them...."
Of course. And that is what the linguistic-based threads (English 101 and English 102) demonstrate. And the fact that you haven't even made so much as an attempt to rebut them helps prove them right. The 2nd A is clear. It's gun advocates who try to re-interpret it to insert things that are not there. And they often do this by ignoring things that ARE there.
Amazing... in an odd and unexpected way I think we have agreed on something. And, I feel relatively certain that most of us who cherish the Second Amendment would agree, too, that to know what it says, all one need do is READ it -- exactly as written. Have a lovely day! Isn't it wonderful, as imprecise as English is, that we do have a word like "SHALL"!
Well, maybe we do still have an entrenched disagreement about what you said in the post above.... So, then, which American citizens "in good standing" are excluded from owning firearms by the 2nd Amendment...?
It neither states, implies nor suggests that you have to keep your weapons in an arms room controlled by the State. There's something those Men understood that you can't seem to wrap your brain around and that is weapons are personal in nature. I happen to like Pachmeyer grips, so I always replace the original grips with Pachmeyers, and I make modifications to the weapon to improve the action, better use of the sights, add scopes, and a number of other things that are well-beyond your skill level. I'm not into making ammunition, but I do know how, and those Men knew how, too. They often mixed their own powder and made their own shot. Now, I'll trash your thread. To KEEP. v.a. [cepan, Sax. kepen, Old Dutch.] 1. To retain; not to lose. 2. To have in custody. You'll find that in: A Dictionary of the English Language: In which the WORDS are deduced from their Originals, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorized by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition, By the Author, SAMUEL JOHNSON, A M. to WHICH are PREFIXED A GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and the PREFACE to the Folio Edition. London, 1786. You'll probably want to get yourself a copy, since that was the only dictionary in use in the States at the time the Constitution was written. You harp about Straw Men then give us one. Not amusing. To BEAR. v.a. part. I bers, or bars. [beorans, Saxon] 1. To carry as a burden. 2. To convey or carry. What you and Wills have in common is you love your anachronisms. There is nothing that states, implies or suggests that one bears arms against an enemy only. So, you admit they severely restricted the definition to what they think it should mean, rather than what it does actually mean. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you might actually be right, your arguments are totally irrelevant. Federal law bans militias. The only authorized militia is the Army National Guard, which is 100% controlled, funded, equipped and staffed by the federal government. Thus, in plain English, you're saying you can only have a weapon if you're a member of the federal government's approved militia. Do you not see the absurdity of that? I mention that, because it has been jurisprudence in Common Law for 900+ years that you cannot interpret anything -- be it a constitution, amendment, statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or contract -- in such a way as to produce an absurd result. To interpret the 2nd Amendment in such a way as "You can only have a weapon if you're a member of the militia established by the tyrannical government you're defending against" is totally absurd.
Nothing is absolute, and those Men were well aware of that. Those Men also predicated the 2nd Amendment on the premise that such individuals would be rational, sane, law-abiding citizens. It would be absurd to suggest those Men intended for the mentally ill, the criminally deranged and common criminals have weapons whenever they felt like it. As I mentioned above, those Men did not deal in absolutes. You need only read their personal diaries, journals and letters to each other to know that. Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not absolute, but the Amendments set forth the conditions when government can deprive you of the same. I do, and they can, and it happens every day. It's called Due Process.
No idea what you're talking about. Who said that it did? The idiom is not "keep". It's "to keep and bear arms". It's a single idiom (at most two idioms: "keep arms" and "bear arms"). Like, for example when you" let the cat out of the bag", or "jump the shark".... They cannot be separated into each one of the words. And, as shown on the OP, the necessary relation to a military-type scenario is demonstrated by looking up the expression (and its variations) without a qualifier in ALL the literature (letters, books, articles, signs, ...) of that time that we have on hand. It ALWAYS refers to a military scenario. This is called "Corpus Linguistics". A very useful tool frequently used in philology when analyzing old texts. Trying to understand an idiom by analyzing each one of the words is absurd. That would be as ridiculous as trying to prove that if something came "straight from the horse’s mouth" is false by analyzing word by word and concluding that horses don't talk. The rest of your post is irrelevant to this topic. But if you can show that the complete idioms "bear arms" or "keep arms" or "keep and bear arms", without qualifiers, were ever used, around the time the Bill of Rights was written and approved, to imply anything other than a military scenario, you can try again. Good luck! Oh... and please try to stay on topic, and not to wander off on unrelated elucubrations. As you can see, I'm not biting.
The word "shall" is an absolute. When it used, it means that is the way it is. It they had used "will", it means that is generally true, but they used "shall".
I see you're still trying to enlist others to bite into your strawman. But I think everybody else has realized that this is not about infringing but about WHAT "shall not be infringed". So you're pretty much on your own still clinging to that strawman. Maybe you should try to come up with a different strawman. That one just didn't work for you.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The meaning is absolutely clear. The meaning is the same when you read the Second Amendment or when you put it in historical perspective. The only strawman is you trying to give it a different meaning.
That is incorrect. Legally, the only imperative is "must." With "must" there are never any exceptions. "Shall" is a lesser imperative and there may be exceptions, limited in number as they may be. Most of you can't see to wrap your brain around the reality that statutes are not drafted in a vacuum. There are certain presumptions and underlying premises that are understood, even when not expressly stated. It's astonishing that most of you don't even realize that the Framers of the Constitution never bothered to mention the President's duties. Why do you suppose that is? It's because Article I would be 19,000 pages long. It is presumed -- there is an underlying premise -- that a President has all the powers a head-of-State traditionally has, except those expressly barred or restricted elsewhere in the Constitution. So, that's why your Constitution is only four pages long instead of 400,000 pages long. The Framers of the Constitution didn't see the point of playing Captain Obvious and stating the obvious to the stupid. The 2nd Amendment is conditionally premised on the individual acting in good faith and being rational and of sound mind. When an individual does not act in good faith, or is not rational of sound mind, they may be barred from owning or possessing a weapon. That's what the Men of the 13 State legislatures and the Framers of the Constitution understood when they wrote it. If you have evidence they intended for those acting in bad faith or who were not rational or of sound mind to possess weapons, then show us. We'll wait.....
According to Merriam Webster: " "—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory. It shall be unlawful to carry firearms"
"CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE": Two Hawaii Gun Regulations Struck Down. Unconstitutional. The first thing the Taliban is doing as they take over Kabul, is disarming the residents. That's what Authoritarians do.
Miriam Webster didn't exist in 1792. Also, courts don't use Webster. They use Black's Law Dictionary, which is far more comprehensive than Webters's New Collegiate Dictionary, which courts do use when defining non-legal terms. For example, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals defined "investigate" using Webster's in an FCRA action and much to the chagrin of credit reporting agencies, the Court did not define "investigate" as "mouse-click."
What "prohibited occupation" would they include? You give two links, and neither of them contain the paragraphs you quoted. You probably thought it was convenient not to disclose the context. But obviously, from the part of the text you quote, the clergy is not prohibited from being part of a military force. They are just prohibited from bearing arms, according to the text you quoted from... who knows where... Huh? For God's sake! It's about the Quakers bearing arms against the French! That's not a military type setting? Are you serious?
LOL. Your links contain everything I’ve quoted! You know, the blogger that made up the bunk you repeated. Self defense was cited as the reason. If I as a civilian use arms to provide self defense it is in no way a military setting. Funny stuff. Face it. You picked the wrong blogger to parrot.
No, they don't contain those texts. But, in any case, I'm happy to see you made such an effort to try to find some context that was not military. The fact that you tried so hard and failed confirms the premise of the OP. Self defense in mentioned in MANY texts with phrases containing the idiom "bear arms". As a matter of fact, in 2% of the texts found in the Corpus. Read the OP! But, when used that way, it requires a qualifier! Why? Because without a qualifier (as used by the 2nd A), it always refers to a military scenario.
