What do you mean it was never discussed?... "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 My god, man!...lol
It very clearly says "what" shall not be infringed. It says the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I never looked upon it as a ceremony. I looked upon it as an oath to uphold the Constitution. I believe a lot of veterans would be surprised to learn that it was only a "ceremony" and therefore should be taken seriously. My comment was very clear. I was not taking an oath to what historians think the framers of the Constitution meant. My oath was to the Constitution.
From your post: "So basically the 2nd A meant that abled bodied people should be compelled to enlist in a sort of "army" that was NOT a "standing army" (wording was carefully chosen to avoid saying this directly), but that not everybody would be accepted but only (in the words of Alexander Hamilton) a "select corps"." I never said the word "Dumb". I said the claim is "unreasonable." To buy such an unreasonable translation would be "dumb".
"shall not be infringed": points to 'the right' and only the right. NOT the scope of that right. THe courts have already ruled that no right is absolute, and regulation constrains scope. The scope of the right wasn't addressed in any real way, nor was the argument about 'individual' versus 'militia' until Heller,
2A does not disallow regulation pertaining to scope. The SC has already ruled on this, especially in Heller.
It says the right to keep and bear arms. It is absolutely clear. There was and there is no requirement to have an existing militia in order to keep and bear arms.
No guarantee to scope is given in 2A. Heller addressed scope, and Heller also states that there is room for regulation within court ruled constraints.
He offered that in his argument (noting that the quote is truncated),. but that wasn't the only point that was argued nor was the point a 'settled argument'. That point wasn't settled until Wash DC v Heller. The bulk of the arguments regarding the second amendment at that ratifying convention were about the anti federalists concern that the new constitution would give the new congress the right to subsume state militias into the standing armies. Moreover, the actual application and regulation of this right can be subject to legal interpretations and restrictions based on broader legal and constitutional considerations, so says the Supreme Court in Heller.
I've been told otherwise many many times. But nobody has produced anywhere near the evidence that I produced as to what the REAL purpose of the 2nd A was. And, as I said above: it would be VERY easy: just show the quotes in the discussions leading to the ratification in which "owning firearms" is mentioned. If that WERE the purpose of the 2nd A, one would expect to see them... at least MENTIONING that. They didn't! Instead, the document we are discussing (https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf) shows them only discussing standing armies and whether or not religiously scrupulous people should be exempt from serving in a militia or if the states were properly taking care of their militias.... That fact is VERY devastating to the case gun advocates try to make based on the 2nd A
The scope is "bearable arms". Hence the term "bear" in the text. Bearable arms are rifles, pistols and shotguns. And, no, it wasn't illegal to own a cannon in 1789. Hell, it still isn't...lol Nobody's trying to own a nuke, or surface to air missile, or anything else you all mention in that lame ass retort.
If you want to insist that the 2nd Amendment applies to members of the militia, how stupid would it be to disarm the members of the militia ...lol
It was never discussed in the debate leading to the adoption of the 2nd A. How in the world would a constitutional amendment be adopted without EVER even mentioning what it was intended to accomplish?
That ain't what you said. This, is what you said... "My point is that firearm ownership was NOT discussed in the debates leading up to redacting, wording, rewording, passing, discussing ... the 2nd A." Passing and ratification are the same thing.
what it involves is leftwing activists who hate how gun owners have voted against the left ever since left-wingers pretended gun control is crime control. Since politics drives the anti gun agenda, we don't expect them to understand firearms, criminals, criminology or whether their schemes work to decrease crime. All they care about is spewing stuff that they think ignorant people will buy into-stuff that harasses honest people as much as they can get away with.
what is beyond brain dead is claiming that people cannot own or use firearms BEFORE they answer the call up. It's almost akin to saying someone cannot practice running before they are entered into a marathon or and EMT cannot have emergency medical gear with him until he is called out on an emergency run
