yet none of them can explain why the founders never gave the federal government any gun control power.
To bear means to carry ready for use. To keep means to maintain in good working condition. To keep and bear means to maintain in good working condition and carry ready for use. This is not an idiom. It is a literal description of the right enshrined. You don't carry arms ready for use against a rabbit sounds perfectly clear, if a bit off current dialect. No wonder, since the term is from 1791, not from 2022. And various authorities on grammar from the actual time period are more authoritative than the sources you cite. Again: Scalia in Heller cites those authorities contemporary with the founding. I understand you don't like that because it means you're wrong. However: I don't care. Attack science? Linguistics is not a ****ing hard science. You might as well be citing gender studies ffs. These researchers were not the first to study grammar. They did not invent the subject.
You are way behind in this debate. Yes. "To bear" means that. It can also mean "to endure". And some might argue it could mean "to act like a furry animal that hibernates in winter, goes 'grooowwwlll' and loves to eat honey" BUT ".... to keep and bear arms" is a complete and inseparable idiom that has a very specific meaning. To understand that specific meaning, you would need to start by reading the OP. Even more so for any older dialect.
To bear does also mean to endure, which is why you use the word ARMS to tell you you're not talking about enduring the inane bullshit of other humans without strangling them as they desperately deserve, for example. Your second example would require to ACT LIKE A, as bear is a noun not a verb. Bear is not what you do if you're talking furries. To understand that meaning you need only know the definition of each word. Keep means to possess, bear means to carry ready for use, in this context, and both apply to 'arms' which are weapons one might port about to be distinguished from fixed emplacements. You don't need to read your rather silly OP or any of the other serial threads you've made on the subject which are wildly and hilariously incorrect. Which is why you read it understanding it from the language of the day, not from the language of the present. Hence why Scalia's source of grammar textbooks contemporaneous with the founding is compelling: Because its people from the day, who taught other people how to write correctly, telling us what it means.
"The glass broke when he leaned on it. It was not built to bear arms that were this heavy" As I said, it's a complete and inseparable idiom "...to keep and bear arms". It has ONE meaning as a whole. Again, you are just not getting the point of this debate. And you won't until you read (and understand) the OP.
The subject IT modifies the context of the sentence, giving you the clue that arms in this case does not refer to weapons but to the human extremity. The glass was not built to endure human manipulator extremities attached to the torso that were this heavy. Yes, a sentence in context means a thing. The context in this case is a prefatory and operative clause pairing, the operative clause reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Its not referring to whether or not you can have your manipulator extremities dude, that's an entirely non-sensical result and really just a complete new low for you to even suggest in jest. Your OP has no value, as it is wildly and laughably incorrect.
In an idiom, EVERYTHING is the context. That's why it's inseparable. I don't think it's worth the effort to explain to you what an idiom is. Look. I'll make it easy for you. The OP contains the scientific study carried out by linguists and philologists. It even includes links to the tools they used, in case you want to repeat it. If you want to discuss them, READ them. If you don't then don't.
how does this science work? there are plenty of historians and linguists and most importantly MOST LEGAL scholars who reject the collectivist bullshit that the anti gun left pushes. There is no doubt the founders saw the right to keep and bear arms as effectuating the natural right of free men to self defense.
This again. When you refer to the 2a you're talking a prefatory and operative clause pairing. Archaic to be sure, but perfectly understandable. Literally, you can put your hand over the prefatory clause and pretend it doesn't exist. Let's try an exercise: A well tailored suit, being necessary to a sharp dressed man, the right of the people to keep and wear clothing, shall not be infringed. A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. Identify who has the right described in each sentence. Describe what restrictions may be placed upon that right. State what effect the sections behind the first two commas have on the remainder of the sentence.
an independent press being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to engage in free speech shall not be infringed,
The OP explains. I'll take on ANYBODY who uses historical or linguistic arguments to justify the nonsense that the intention of the 2nd A was to in any way address an individual "right" to own weapons. However, the fact that you have to use an "Anonymous Authorities" fallacy tells me you don't know of any.
Yep! And we discuss that in the thread about that topic. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/
anonymous authorities such as Sanford Levinson, William Van Alstyne, Akhil Reed Amar, David Kopel, Joyce Malcom, Eugene Volokh, Don Kates, Robert Control and every justice on the US supreme court in Heller. Ponder this-what is a tougher course of study to get into-Yale Law or a PhD in Linguistics. what school do you think has the smartest students attending?
Don't cut the quotes. People often perceive that as a form of intellectual dishonesty. Care to complete the exercise?
Funny how you didn't get the message: there is no such thing as "authorities" in science! And throwing in names instead of attempting to make an argument is DEFINITELY resorting to the "Anonymous Authorities" fallacy!
That's absurd! You know what you wrote. I perceive not READING posts as a form of intellectual dishonesty. Your question was answered.
Funny that you admit not reading is intellectually dishonest. Then didn't read. Identify who has the right described in each sentence. Describe what restrictions may be placed upon that right. State what effect the sections behind the first two commas have on the remainder of the sentence. Your post does not answer the question. It deflects and attempts to obfuscate in an obvious and tired manner.
I posted it in the correct thread, you just prefer to try to deflect. And you can't even do that right as you do not engage in the exercise despite your many, repeated, protests and deflections in two threads now. Again: See the sources cited in Heller, which are grammar textbooks contemporaneous with the founding. Argue with them in the 1790s and early 1800s, not me. Better get out the wayback machine.
Answered in the appropriate thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-gun-advocates.585785/page-36#post-1073908829 Please do not attempt to derail the thread.
is that sort of an oblique way of saying you don't have any support for your ridiculous attempts to rewrite the second amendment to help your anti gun arguments?
