The Left Have Shot Themselves In The Foot

Women don't generally walk about with a pistol in hand

 

What do those dictionaries have it as specific to?

 

So you think the January 6 right wing solution: grab flag polls and clobber cops with them, was better?

 

I didn’t ask you to do my research. Frankly, I don’t care what you do.

 

I realize that self proclaimed historians that know little about firearms believe citizens should not be allowed to carry a gun. Would you be able to discuss the history of disarming people and democide?

 

The problem is things should be equal on both sides and in the media but they are not. The left defended rioters all summer long by referring to them as "mostly peaceful protesters" but, even though most of the people at the Capitol on Jan 6th were also "mostly peaceful protesters" the left want to throw the book at everyone who was there, including the mostly peaceful protesters. The left were also fine with rioters wanting to storm the federal courthouse (courts represent our democracy) in Portland and refused help from the National Guard that Trump offered. When it came to the Capitol, the left wanted more police and wanted the National Guard brought in.

In Chicago, the mayor refused help from Trump regarding out of control gun violence but when Biden became president, she begged help from the federal government for the very same thing. Several years ago Bernie Sanders instigated one of his followers to go shoot up Republicans in Congress in an attempted coup of our government by calling for a revolution but Bernie was not investigated in any way, shape, or form and yet the left's very own FBI plant on Jan 6th says that Trump & Co were not in charge and that the rioters did not have a plan and were spontaneous in the things that they did. But, full steam ahead with the insurrection investigations.

 

Double standards all around. The media really did call the BLM riots "mostly peaceful" and didn't extend that same terminology to the Jan 6 protestors. But had the Jan 6 protestors who busted into the white house been black, does anybody really think they not have been shot?

 

So you tried to make an argument based on something about some... dictionaries... and you don't know what they say?

Amazing!

That's how bad things have gotten for the pro-gun advocates.

 

I apologize, my earlier post #229 was mistakenly responding to your signature, not your comment.

The article I linked to referred to a paper produced by Cramer and Olson researching how the phrase “bear arms” was used by the founding fathers at the time he Constitution as been written. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1086176

The paper includes more than dictionary definitions, it includes several quotes showing they spoke of the phrase meaning both for militia use as well as other personal uses, including self defense. The phrase was not specific to militia service. That IMO is the important part of the article and paper.

 

NO! They should NOT be equal on both sides. In each individual issue one side is right and the other is wrong. But it takes intellectual effort to discern between the two. And so-called "independents" are among the laziest (intellectually speaking) of them all. Protesting to defend a RIGHT is very different from protesting to overthrow a democratically elected government. Any false equivalence is just plain intellectual lethargy.

I don't condone rioting unless it's the absolute last resort to defend one's rights. I don't think we have gotten to that point, though we might.... But it's IMPOSSIBLE to compare people who are defending actual RIGHTS with thugs who DON'T have a right to overturn the results of a democratically held election.

 

Answer my questions. You can't. There are many different and opposing facts but you just want to use the ones that prove your case and ignore the facts of the other side. Facts clearly show that the Earth has had many different periods of rising and cooling temps. That's a fact, but the left want to deny that fact and many others. Science and experts have determined that Covid vaccines are dangerous but you choose to ignore those facts. Whose facts were correct, Copernicus's or the facts espoused by everyone else in his time? If we always eliminated the so called wild ideas of the select few in science we would have never learned the true facts about any number of things. How about the fact that 1/3 of all meds approved by the FDA are later found to be dangerous? Weren't the vaccines approved by the FDA?

 

There has never been a time in Earth's history when the unnatural release of CO2 in to the atmosphere in massive quantities by virtue of human activity has occurred.
"Science and experts have determined that Covid vaccines are dangerous" Prove it.

 

The Corpus I mention here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

...also refers to much more than dictionary definitions. It refers to literature, letters, articles... even signs...every single type of document written at the time. They found NO reference to "bear arms" without a qualifier used in any other way than in a military scenario.

In other words, in order for "bear arms" to be used in any way other than in reference to a military scenario, a qualifier was necessary. There is no qualifier in the 2nd A. So, I ask again, please provide a quote of "bear arms" (or any version of the idiom, such as "bore arms" or "bearing arms"...) without a qualifier in which the term is used to mean anything other than military.

There is one possible exception found in Corpus Linguistics mentioned by the researchers. A reference to a sign outside a church that said something like "Please refrain from bearing arms inside the church". Which was obviously intended to be ironic.

So please provide a quote

 

You opened a thread about gun control, then changed the topic to "the press" and now that both those flopped, you try to change the subject with absurd unrelated questions about Copernicus, global warming, vaccines.....

That, boys and girls, is the clearest possible sign you will ever see that somebody is desperate because they can't make an argument.

I would be happy to rebut your "vaccine", or Copernicus, or AGW... nonsense just like I did the foolishness in this thread (to the point where you keep changing the subject). You are just spewing nonsense you hear on right-wingnut media, which is clearly the source of your "science". So they are easy to rebut. But only in a thread that is specifically about THAT topic. I'm tired of getting posts for which I have researched deleted because extremists on the right like you change the subject to get mods to delete them for being off-topic.

 

The are several

It’s clear you haven’t read the article nor the paper I linked to, so I’m not going to entertain your objection to what information I’ve provided.

Let me just refer you the holding of the Heller decision:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation.
​

So, the Court held that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment was not unlimited, but it was not limited by the predatory clause to be the need to maintain a militia.

 

Quote!

Why do I even have to ask?

Heller was NOT written at the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted.

You claimed that there are quotes from literature at the time in which "bear arms" was used without qualifiers (because it doesn't have any in the 2nd A), to indicate something other than a military scenario.

If you have one, quote it. Your source that there are, so I'm sure you can provide at least one. Don't make me repeat the request. If you don't have any just say so, and we don't waste any more time on a source that is not worth it

 

Don’t make you repeat the request? You’re so far out into the weeds from the OP you’re now making petty demands. Who the hell cares what you request...not I.

 

I care. It means that, yet again, a right winger tried to make an argument that the 2nd A (as written) addresses (confers, affirms, grants... whatever you want to call it) some individual "right" to own weapons and fails. Just so you know, I'm collecting those. So far, you are about number 28 who attempts to make that point and fails, vs ZERO who have succeeded.

That should tell any rational human being something about how idiotic the claim is... I'm not referring to you, of course...

 

I think you’re fooling yourself. I, and many before me, have shown the phrase “keep and bear arms”
has been used frequently, though not a majority, to mean for both military and private personal use at the time the Constitution was written and long since. No specific quote is required to prove that.

 

This is NOT the 18th Century. You brought up a source that CLAIMED that "bear arms" did not necessarily refer to the military at the time the 2nd A was written. You claimed that there were many examples of the idiom used at the time not relating to a military scenario. Your source claims that too. And yet, you are unable to provide a single QUOTE of the literature at the time in which the 2nd A was used that way without resorting to a qualifier.

Of course it's required!!!! If you expect to be taken seriously, that is.

You see... there are some people here, on the right, who we understand are just trolling. We know who they are, and we just don't take them seriously. I'm pretty sure (or, at least, hope) you are not just another one of those. So if you want to be taken seriously, you can do one of two things: provide a quote. Or retract. There is no shame in retracting, you know... But there is quite a bit of shame in doubling down on something you are unable to demonstrate.

 

Taken directly from the paper you refuse to read is the following, citing quotes directly from State Constitutions written during the late 18th century. frequently by the same men involved in the writing of the U.S. Constitution;

Unsurprisingly, most of the state constitutions adopted in the early Republic period contain guarantees of a right to bear arms—and many of them are identical to, or very similar to, the guarantees in the Pennsylvania Constitutions of 1776 and 1790. Vermont’s 1777, 1786, and 1793 Constitutions, “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . .”39 Ohio Constitution of 180240 and Indiana Constitution of 181641 use identical language, with only slight differences in capitalization and punctuation. The similarity to the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 is quite striking, “[t]hat the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.”42 Kentucky’s 1792 and 1799 Constitutions are somewhat more specific to citizens,

“[t]hat the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”43 Missouri Constitution of 1820 uses language similar to that of the Pennsylvania Constitution—but tied the right more closely to a clearly individual right: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.44​

 

As I have explained numerous times, in order to have a militia, they needed arms. The individuals were required to provide their own arms. Those arms were needed whether there was an active militia or not for the simple reason that they needed a militia, they would not have time to acquire arms. When the Second Amendment is read with this in mind, it makes perfect sense.

 

Forum rules state that quotes, links, references... should be used to support your arguments. But not to make the arguments for you.

It should be easy: you provide a quote from something written at the time, in which the idiom "bear arms" is used in a non-military context without using qualifiers.

​

"in defence of themselves" is a QUALIFIER. They HAVE to include it because, if they don't, then a typical average educated American would interpret it to mean ONLY in a military sense like they do in every single instance of the term used in ALL American writings (literature, letters, articles, etc) in which a qualifier is not included.

The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT use qualifiers. And, mind you, qualifiers were proposed, but voted down in the course of passing the Amendment through Congress.

Now... can you or can you not produce a text without qualifiers in which "bear arms" is used to indicate something that is not military?

Just say you can't, and be done with it.

 

It does. And it's precisely the reason why an individual right to own weapons was not addressed in the 2nd A. Owning guns was a given at the time. Like owning a horse or owning pants.... So it was not included. Which is my point.

So we are in agreement...

 

And therefore we have a second amendment which says we have a right to own a gun and that right cannot be abridged.