Oh come on, when the founders said the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms-they really meant only those who have joined a militia that had become federalized
Not if you discount the support of ALL reputable linguists and philologists in the country. And, of course, you would have to discard scientific data obtained using tools that even YOU can use to verify and are referenced on the OP.
No it's not! If you don't believe me maybe you can show the OP to a competent legal expert, and they will immediately notice that it's about linguistics and not about law. Linguistics is a science. But, of course, you won't believe me about this either. Maybe you have a nearby university with a Linguistics or Philology program, and they can verify this fact to you. I don't have the time, the drive or the interest.
linguistics is at best a pseudo science-like political science and you have yet to prove that your argument is correct-from a scientific point
Right... If you run out of arguments: attack science. Obviously you are as unfamiliar with science as you are with History and Philology. Linguistics is a full-fledged science. And a very precise one, in fact.
Of course, because that's how People is used in the rest of the bill of rights!! Collectively only. Its not like its only ever used to describe individual rights in every other instance!!! No siree!!
linguistics is not a hard science. It is not the same as saying water freezes at 0 C or that E=MC2. It is based on opinion and supposition and subjective interpretation. and most importantly, there is not a SINGLE DOCUMENT contemporary with the second amendment that supports the "militia only" bullshit that the anti gun extremists try to pretend is the correct interpretation. When those who enacted the bill rights are on record saying stuff like No man will be debarred from keeping arms etc, it is pretty obvious what the intent of those founders was
The only infringements they allowed were against those they considered 3/5ths of a person. We fixed that whole 3/5ths of a person, second class citizen bullshit. That means no infringements for all. It is always shocking to me, given the literally racist history of gun control throughout its entire existence, given the fact that after every institution of american gun control american lynchings mysteriously rose for no discernible reason, given the constant bleating about the government and police being racially bigoted and oppressive, that lefties always want more gun control. Already have gun control? Double secret gun control is required.
gun control advocates are akin to President Washington's doctors. When GW was stricken with an illness, those quacks thought bleeding the president would remove the illness. When that didn't work, they applied even more leaches ending in him dying. We don't know if the illness killed him, the loss of blood killed him or a combination of both but a cynic might conclude that killing the president was the real goal of the "doctors" or at best, they were ignorant and actually believed their idiotic treatment works
Depends on what you mean by "hard science", but it makes no difference. Still a science. X NP AUX Y X AUX NP Y (NP = Noun Phrase and AUX = Auxiliary) is as true and as universal (to all languages) as E=MCC
tell us why linguistics has any controlling value when it comes to determining what the second amendment means LEGALLY
Definitely it's "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms. The OP here explains what "keep and bear arms" means. If you have any other alternative meaning that is not what ALL literature (books, letters, newspaper articles, ...) interpreted, do share
find me the language in Article One Section Eight that grants the federal government any gun control powers over private citizens
English 550 "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Heller vs District of Columbia
This thread is about the 2nd A as written . Start by addressing my points and then you can open a thread if you need the Necessary and Proper Clause explained to you. Not that I have any interest in explaining it to you, mind you.... I say again: the OP explains what "keep and bear arms" means. What it meant to the framers who wrote it and approved it.
Shall not be infringed by who? Well, the 2ND is an amendment which restricts the federal gov't so the federal gov't shall not infringe.
In American parlance at the time of the writing and passing of the 2ND, to keep arms meant to use arms not in war time situations and bearing arms meant to use arms in war time situations.
And "to keep and bear arms" which ONLY refers to military-type scenarios, in every single instance as explained in the OP.
the second as written is a blanket prohibition on the federal government infringing on private citizens right to keep and bear arm. Remind me what law school granted you a degree
The Founders disagree as they themselves explain. “The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”- Richard Henry Lee “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson "Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”- Zachariah Johnson “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison [*]“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46 [*]“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention “To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason The law of the land INCLUDES the 2nd amendment. Heller v The District of Columbia affirmed the individuals right to own firearms such as are in common use. No firearms have ever been more in common use than those built on the AR receiver. Golem you can 101 and 102 History and English, you can walk or chew gum, you can judge arguments binary and, you can define and quote English usage. What you cannot do is, successfully, argue against the right of individual American's to own firearms that are in common use. Which was the intention of OUR Founders from the outset of OUR nation.
Not one of your quotes contradicts the OP. And if you think there is one that does, point it out, and quote from the OP the part that you claim it contradicts. But your post, as you wrote it, appears to be just one long strawman. It has NOTHING to do with this or any of the threads I have opened on the topic. Having said that, there were, of course, people who disagreed with the 2nd A as was approved. And some of the disagreements are explained in http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ However, the 2nd A was approved by Congress and the States the way you see it today. I can't say that it pleased ALL of our founders. There were objections, as you'll see in the above link, especially by the anti-federalists. But the majority ruled, and the Law of the Land was set as you see it now.
Absolutely! the right to keep and bear arms and nothing less. My point is that also NOTHING MORE. You have been participating in this thread and didn't understand this? Well... that's fine. But now you have no excuse.
