Did you actually bother to look at how the term "the people" is used in the rest of the Bill of Rights? Probably not. "The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian reading. The core of the First Amendment’s assembly clause, which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of 'the people'—in essence, voters—to 'assemble' in constitutional conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core rights retained and reserved to 'the people' in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to govern themselves democratically. The Fourth Amendment is trickier: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.' Here, the collective 'people' wording is paired with more individualistic language of 'persons.' And these words obviously focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the Fourth use the words 'the people' at all? Probably to highlight the role that jurors—acting collectively and representing the electorate—would play in deciding which searches were reasonable and how much to punish government officials who searched or seized improperly." https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts Regardless, this has mainly become a point of contention because people like you want rights without responsibilities. If the well-regulated citizen militia were restored then you could participate in collectively exercising the people's RKBA. But that isn't good enough for you. You want to own guns without the traditional duties associated with owning them.
Again: what the hell does that have to do with anything I have written? If you want to argue that the right to own weapons is granted by.... the Bible.... go for it! I don't care! My one and only point is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, affirm, describe.... (use whatever word you want) an individual right to own guns.
what you are either unable to understand or admit is that the founders believed that the natural right of self defense has been a right of man as long as man has existed and the second amendment was intended to guarantee this right. The second amendment was designed to PREVENT the federal government-which was never delegated the power in the first place to interfere with this area-from having any power over what arms private citizens could keep and bear in their sovereign states.
"Logical"? Have you read the posts by Trump followers on this forum? You did not read what I wrote. All of the above! A requires B No B Therefore.... (you finish it) A 9 year old could have figured it out even without the need of the syllogism....
Then why begin the Second Amendment with a clause about the well-regulated militia and then use an idiomatic expression which has a military meaning in the second clause? Were the authors just not very good communicators?
Are you in favor of federal restrictions on the ability of the people of the several states to acquire and posses firearms?
Then naturally look at the preamble for clarification if it's ambiguous. All I'm saying is that what Turtledude claims doesn't seem to be very obvious in the language of the Second Amendment. I have a hard time believing the authors were such poor communicators.
And can you cite the language in the constitution that gives Congress legislative power to enact a law restricting the ability of a person in one of the several states from acquiring or possessing or carrying a firearm?
Why would Trump's greatest supporters still support him if he went tyrannical against them? You haven't defined A and B! Also, what makes you think that the US military is "too big for a tyrannical figure" to ever take it over? Yeah, a 9 year old with the same strange wiring that you apparently have! You can't pretend that everyone should know what the hell you're talking about!
DOesn't matter-you cannot find a single letter, document, note, reference to a speech etc from a founder that suggested that the federal government could tell a private citizen that he could not own a weapon in his own sovereign state. If you can find any evidence to the contrary-please do so
not at the federal level if you actually support the constitution : BTW what a gun banner thinks is reasonable is not something thoughtful gun owners find reasonable
They communicated very well in Article 1, Section 8. They communicated well in the subsequent and antecedent state Constitutions. What I can't understand is why you still think that an amendment in the Bill of Rights was intended to increase government power in direct opposition to the purpose of the Bill of Rights.
It has indeed been analyzed. Nothing found within the text of the bill of rights, or anywhere else in the united states constitution, suggests private individuals do not have constitutional rights, or that such rights were intended to apply to the whole public rather than individuals. Such a faulty interpretation does not have the physical ability to actually work. It is impossible to state that a group of individuals possesses certain rights, but the private individuals of the group do not enjoy the same rights and protections. Such would allow a group to be picked apart one member and one piece at a time until there is nothing left. Except such cannot actually be shown as being the case. No one present has demanded that they be free from the responsibilities that come with exercising their constitutional rights. And homosexuals want marriage when such has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman exclusively. They wish to practice a tradition that historically led them being put to death, and shielded from the consequences of their desires.
I'm saying that the Harvard Law Review concluded that the overwhelming majority of instances pointed to a military use. To a linguist that is conclusive evidence of what the phrase meant in the mind of the citizens. And the fact that all instances that did not refer to a military context required a qualifier, leaves absolutely no doubt. Whether that constitutes legal proof or not is beyond the scope of linguistics. This is why experts in law should do law, and experts in linguistics should do linguistics. But when Scalia failed to even address the conclusions of the real experts, that's when he shows he was just actively pushing a conclusion he had already made up his mind on.
The authors of the Harvard story seemed to have some doubt: "Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant used Google Books to search for the phase “bear arms” in sources published between 1760-1795. They found that in 67.4% of the sample size, “bear arms” was used in its collective sense, whereas in 18.2% of the sample, the phase was used in an individual sense." "Does the Second Amendment refer only to the right to “bear arms”? Or does it also refer to the right to “keep . . . arms”? In Heller, Justice Scalia adopted the latter view: “[t]he most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to ‘have weapons.’” In contrast, Justice Stevens adopted the former view: The Second Amendment “protects only one right, rather than two.” That is, “the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.” Professor Baron’s recent analysis, as well as that of Professors LaCroix and Merchant, focused only on “bear arms,” and not “keep arms.” Justice Scalia observed in Heller that “[t]he phrase ‘keep arms’ was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found” (emphasis added). Again, Justice Scalia’s opinion implicitly recognized the deficiency of studying a limited range of materials. Today, given a larger corpus, we were able to find a significant number of such usages. We performed a search for the word “keep” (and its variants, “keeping,” “kept,” etc.) within four words of “arm” or “arms.” This sort of complicated query of such a wide-range of founding-era sources was technologically impossiblein 2008 when Heller was decided. Our search yielded roughly 200 results, which included every instance of arms near some form of the verb to keep. Again, we reviewed 50 of these documents as a sample. From this lot, we discarded irrelevant searches (such as “she kept her arms above her head”), quotations from the Constitution, and duplicates. In the remaining 18 documents in the sample, about half referred to keeping arms in the military context, roughly a quarter referred to a private sense of keeping arms, and another quarter or so were ambiguous references." Maybe that's because the conclusions of the experts aren't conclusive. From the Harvard article, again: "Corpus linguistics offers a very promising new avenue for originalist research, but it may not always fully answer the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Linguistic inquiries often fail to account for other evidence that informs constitutional meaning, including the structure of the Constitution and historical practice. And even within the linguistic evidence, we still need to determine whether all sources are treated equal or whether some sources should be seen as more probative of the interpretive question at hand. Specifically, we have to recognize that for legal terms of art, certain legal materials will be the most relevant. For non-legal-terms-of-art, non-legal materials will be the most relevant. For example, state constitutional provisions that protect the right to bear arms, that were drafted contemporaneously with the Second Amendment, perhaps should be weighted more heavily than other sources. Should substantially all available evidence—linguistics, the Constitution’s structure, and historical practice—point in the same direction, then we can be rather confident about the original meaning of “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”" What have we actually seen from historical practice? 150 years after ratification before the first federal gun control law was passed, and not long after that, a SCOTUS case that accepted the standing of the petitioner solely on the claim that the individual right to keep and bear arms was protected by the Second Amendment (US v Miller).
It makes no difference. The "right" addressed is not to own guns. You're too far behind in this discussion to make any significant contribution. And you already indicated that you are not interested. So why do you bother? And why should I bother to respond? It's a waste of time, right?
It's to keep and bear them in a civilian context. The militia has no right to keep or bear firearms at all.
Two reasons: Because my current sig is better to describe Trump loyalists. And because right wingers keep changing the subject. (just like you did). A clear sign that they can't rebut the argument.
I've provide multiple rebuttals to your linguist claims, and since the topic is the truth about the 2A, you've been off topic with every post.
No. Not "plenary", but they were pretty broad. I would appreciate if, at this point, you indicated the relevance of this to the argument being discussed.
