The right to own guns is granted by the lack of any constitutional language that would empower congress to enact a law restricting the ability of any of the people of the several states from manufacturing, acquiring, or possessing arms.
If somebody in the 18th century said "I boar arms against the king.", it's an individual sense. You claim that he must have done it as part of an Army. I have no problem with that. as it makes no difference to my point. In other words: it doesn't matter if it's individual or collective. The only thing that matters is if it's said in a military sense. And there are no instances (there might be a handful, since people can misuse idioms.... but they haven't been found) in which the idiom is used in a non-military sense without the need for qualifiers. I didn't quite say that. I said my current argument is based only on linguistics. I have not stated that I don't have (or that I do have) other arguments. I hope I already responded adequately to that above. It makes no difference in my argument if it was used in a collective or individual sense. Only thng relevant to my argument is that it's always used in a military sense. And that when used in another sense it always inccludes an explicit qualifier. That would seem to prove that Justice Holmes was right: "You can't falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater" (or something to that effect)
I've made no such claim. It's quite possible that he stated "I boar my musket to the forest" or merely carried the damn thing without saying or writing anything. [qutoe] In other words: it doesn't matter if it's individual or collective. The only thing that matters is if it's said in a military sense. And there are no instances (there might be a handful, since people can misuse idioms.... but they haven't been found) in which the idiom is used in a non-military sense without the need for qualifiers. [/quote] You can't prove that that's how every person in the 18th century viewed the term. You just have a feeling. We can only discuss what you post. Unlike you, I don't purport to be a mind reader. You can't prove that it was always used in a military sense. You can't prove that the individual uses in the Harvard article only included qualifiers. You can't even prove that the qualifier makes a bit of difference. You ignore that "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" You should look up Brandenburg v Ohio.
It would appear to me that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to protect the security of a free state by the means and in the form prescribed by Congress. Why? I really have no idea why that surprises you. Human beings have an outstanding tool to communicate what is in their mind. It's called "language". Spoken or written language. When written language is used, it makes no difference if they wrote it today, 200 years ago, or 2000 years ago/. We do need linguists to understand how certain words and expressions were used at the time when they are written. It's one of the main tasks of the science of linguistics.... All science is deductive.
It would appear this discussion is not going to go anywhere on its own. As such it is perhaps time to change the discussion to something that is perhaps more relevant. According to the linguists being cited on the part of yourself as experts in this matter, precisely what right is entailed and protected by the second amendment according to their interpretation? Exactly what was the purpose of the second amendment, and exactly what was it supposed to do, that it is not currently doing?
Not necessary, since congress has zero constitutional authority to enact a law prohibiting ownership of guns.
Why would I deny the veracity if you used sources other than mine? I never assume that anybody is lying unless they have been proven in the past to not be trustworthy./ I mean, if you use Trump or Breitbart or... some source to be known to have lied.... But the Harvard Law Review?... Anyway, it's a great source, but only if you use them to make a point. And you didn't even make one.. Admits? The source you chose for an argument that is linguistic is not of experts in linguistics. How could they "admit" that?. They are law experts. And I have already pointed out that the linguists did account for other meanings of the idiom "bear arms". They all require a qualifier. What the text you are using actually proves is that even law experts admit that the number of instances in which "bear arms" refers to a military context is (quoting them) "overwhelming". They used a more recent version of the database. Because you appeared to imply that using newer methods, the results were different. They are not! As proven by the two articles I referenced in my response. One of them by linguists. The other by law experts.
How many times do I have to post this? "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"
Huh? Where is "bear arms" in that phrase? Prove that every person...? That's absurd. I have proven what the idiom means in the mind of any normal citizen with an average education. That's what linguistics does. Word of advice: stay away from Science. It's not for you. You obviously don't have the mental framework required. No. I can only prove that it was used in a military sense at the time when the 2nd Amendment was submitted fror approval. I don't know about "always". I only know it for that specific time period. True. Anybody can do the search in the database. But this is why, to interpret the results adequately, the input of a linguist is required. Forum rules as well as common honesty when engaged in a serious debate, would say otherwise.
That's an argument for repealing the 2nd Amendment. It ISN'T an argument for how it doesn't apply to give gun rights today.
Bearing a musket is bearing arms. No, you haven't done that. That's just your claim. My mathematics professors would beg to differ with you. It's linguistics that's not a real science. But not for every instance in which it was used. Yea, only linguists believe that. You're not famiiar with Brandenburg v Ohio, and how it destroys your quip at the end?[/quote]
Thank you for dishonestly editing my post. It allows everyone to clearly see that you are running from addressing my point. In post #887, you quoted me as saying this: "The right to own guns is granted by the lack of any constitutional language." That's not what I actually wrote. You inserted a period and cut off the last half of my statement. Here's what I actually said in post #877, which you "quoted": "The right to own guns is granted by the lack of any constitutional language that would empower congress to enact a law restricting the ability of any of the people of the several states from manufacturing, acquiring, or possessing arms." The post numbers are links, btw, so you can go look for yourself. It appears you have difficulty accepting the fact that the constitution contains no language that would empower congress to enact a law restricting the ability of any of the people of the several states from manufacturing, acquiring, or possessing arms.
It would appear this discussion is not going to go anywhere on its own. As such it is perhaps time to change the discussion to something that is perhaps more relevant. According to the linguists being cited on the part of yourself as experts in this matter, precisely what right is entailed and protected by the second amendment according to their interpretation? Exactly what was the purpose of the second amendment, and exactly what was it supposed to do, that it is not currently doing?
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
He's got a great troll argument, you have to admit. "Linguistics are the only thing that matters", even though his own source says otherwise, and "only linguists can understand the 'science' of linguistics, so you have to trust me".
