I also have the words and speeches of the founders to interpret what the words meant. But I have something additional you don't have. I have what they actually approved. I'm not as interested on what they intended as I am on what was actually approved. Certainly not the linguistic scholars. They can tell you what the words written in the 2nd A evoked in the mind of any educated citizen of the era. And it most definitely is not an individual right to carry weapons. This is evidence that we should let the scholars in law do law, and the scholars in linguistics do linguistics. Attorneys interpreting linguistics produce as much nonsense as linguists interpreting law would produce. Anything you want except the text of the 2nd A Interesting. That means I probably have a huge advantage over you, then. Because I can't say the same. As I said at the beginning, I have had this discussion scores of times. But not everybody who starts from a position in favor of guns is emotional. They have given well-reasoned centered arguments This has demanded from me to research my arguments better. Polish my points. You apparently haven't had that opportunity. I have no idea who you have or haven't met. But the fact that they start from .... whatever position doesn't mean that they are wrong. Apparently you just automatically assume that anybody who opposes guns is wrong. You probably don't even listen to their arguments. I'm willing to bet that you haven't read my post in it's entirety. Which should indicate, not to me, but to you, that you may have a deep bias. I hope you show me otherwise by commenting on all the points in my post.
It is only if you are to base such right on the 2nd A as it is written on the Constitution. If you are going to base it on anything else.... including religious belief.... the sky's the limit.....
Dem's big wurds... Question is not ignoring what they are.... it's that the right would like to ignore that one of them exists. Alas! It exists!
Let us base it on what the founders intended-not what gun banners or gun restrictionists pretend what it is.
Wrong. Do we limit any right to a citizen based upon whether they are "properly trained" in it? No, it is the responsibility of the individual citizen to pursue responsible exercise of their rights, and we assume they have done so until they demonstrate irresponsibility or negligence. The Constitution says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If a sufficient majority of the citizenry feels that certain weapons, ammo, and other related items should indeed be restricted, then they can band together to pass the Constitutional Amendment that changes the 2nd Amendment to allow limited infringements of said weapons, ammo, and other related items. However, for all those pushing to ban "assault weapons", they need to recognize that those very weapons are the ones best suited for the purpose of personal defense and preservation of Liberty.
Then defend that. But don't come later saying that you're defending some sort of mythical "2nd Amendment" right....
Would you consider it a good idea for linguists to decide Constitutional law cases? If not, then please explain why it is ok for an attorney to decide linguistic matters? There is a consensus among linguists as to what the language means. Linguists are not deciding the law.... they're just explaining the language. It's what they know.
No because I have seen linguists claim that the prefatory clause has no impact on the main clause. You are pretending it is a linguistic matter because your goal is to advance anti gun legislation and pretending that the second doesn't prevent it. The founders intent is what counts and their intent is clearly to guarantee an individual right. You are trying to get around it because you KNOW that is true. There is not a consensus of linguists. There is a consensus of left wing linguists.
We should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to ensure private citizens don't have any problems.
Article I, section 8. I see no mention of a power to restrict the possession of arms by the people of several states.
Yes, it is. You are either well regulated or not. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not individual rights. This is the common law for the common defense:
Now you're doing a 180. You cited the Constitution. And you defined the term. These are your words: "A person who pursues proper training and skill is well regulated." Will you please make up your mind? You again move the goalposts See how I try to find points in common, and then you just change your mind? We are discussing the 2nd A. And you start off well by listing the uses of "arms" according to the 2nd A. Then you just arbitrarily default to "all uses". So why did you mention specific uses before and not just start off with "all uses"? Now you say that people must band together and modify the 2nd A to specifically state that weapons specifically designed for the purpose of rapidly killing a massive number of people in a short time are excluded. The best weapon for the preservation of Liberty is called the U.S. Armed Forces. And a better personal defense is that some nut doesn't have an assault rifle to attack you with.
Incorrect. I does not say "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed to the people as part of a well regulated militia." It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You are either well regulated or not. Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not individual rights.
