English 102: "...to keep and bear arms"

Again: not only DOES it say it. Even activist justice Scalia said that it does. In fact, it's the ONLY scenario it refers to, as proven by the OP. Scalia made up unsubstantiated nonsense to extend the meaning, but that's Scalia legislating from the bench. Not the framers.

 

so your argument doesn't make nonsense up and pretend that it's fact?

You are gaslighting.

 

Well if the Constitution doesn't say what you wanted to say just pretend it says something else but doesn't stop people from trying.

 

What a lawyer knows is how a judge might rule based on anything beyond what a particular law says.

A philologist can tell you what the law, as written, SAYS if the language used is English as understood by any average educated individual. To dispute this would require the assumption that the framers didn't know how to express themselves in proper English. You are clearly desperately grasping at straws.

 

Read the OP....

Why did I even need to remind you? Isn't that where you should have started?

 

because I need to read more of your made-up nonsense.

Just because you make up something and say it in the op doesn't make it correct.

You are gaslighting and I would figure you would be doing that in your OP as well.

You don't insane babbling doesn't change because of where it is on the thread.

You have taken leave of all rationale. Enjoy your downward spiral.

 

Yep. Like the 2nd A says "A well regulated being necessary.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they are going to require an expensive medical operation"

Don't bother... the 2nd A (as written) is as obsolete today as the 3rd A is. But if, taken literally (as I did in jest), it had ANY application today, it would mean that Trump violated it.

 

So me referring you to the OP confuses you?

 

I'm not confused it's BS. I don't know if you are a true believer in the Kool-Aid you're drinking or if you're just trying to sell it.

 

"More"???? The OP is the ONLY thing you need to read before jumping into a discussion.

If you REFUSE to read it, then this is a waste of time.

Thanks for playing...

 

In order to have wasted time it would have had to been worth something in the first place and clearly it isn't because you're talking to me about your insane theory.

Why don't you involve lizard people in the space aliens in it as well all the best theories have those.

 

The quote I as responding to had little to nothing to do with the 2A. It had to do with the acceptance of transgenders in the military.

 

In the original form of 2A, additional federal powers are granted to regulate state militias but there is no federal power granted to ensure 'universal arms rights for Americans'...That is left up to state constitutions...That is the limitation of federal power in the 2A...Limiting the federal gov't from granting universal arms rights to Americans so the federal doesn't infringe on states' rights to determine arms rights for its citizens.

You need to start to investigate the passage of 2A from a historical and motivational perspective. I find this always helps to understand the motive behind certain actions....That's a hint, BTW. I can't believe as learned as you think you are on 2A you (or SCOTUS) haven't already done this.

 

Is it uncomfortable having to think outside the box?

 

Are you serious? Let's not understand the motivation behind the passage of The Constitution???What did a certain phrase mean at the time The Constitution was written???

 

So say bumbling SCOTUS judges...That 2A guarantees universal rights to own arms in the US.

 

Bingo!!!SCOTUS judges have changed the original meaning of 2A to guarantee, for example, blacks have the right to defend themselves...The need for the federal to step in on gun rights was to ensure blacks could defend themselves if states took away gun rights from former slaves after the Civil War, for example.

I mean, almost any historian of 2A must acknowledge that 2A has been bastardized over the years due to various and sundry SCOTUS interpretations. My suggestion is to write, er, pass a clearer (a more modern) arms right amendment and ditch 2A altogether...well, ditch 2A altogether.

 

I follow the Constitution as signed

 

I think at this point it's time to use my turkey dressing analogy of 2A...It's Thanksgiving time, ya know.

For instance, let's analogize there was a recipe which described the steps on how to make turkey dressing...Let's say at the end of the recipe there was a phrase inserted, 'let not the use of sage by the people be infringed'.

Then let's say the turkey dressing recipe is interpreted as meaning the use of sage on everything can't be infringed anytime, anywhere.
In other words, the turkey dressing recipe has morphed into a mandate allowing the use of sage anytime, anywhere.

 

Bad analogy. Putting in an ambiguous statement and then claiming that somehow proves something.

 

All you gotta do is read the history of the motivations and the passage of 2A. I dare you to read it.

 

I most likely read it years ago. I have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution at least a half dozen times. Not once have I sworn to uphold and defend previous versions of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is clear as written.

 

deleted

 

It gets people to pay attention to him.
Finally.
Nothing more, nothing less.

 

You have no basis in fact for your claim.
Demonstrate otherwise.