So you refuse to answer the question. I'm afraid your credibility is hanging by a thread. One of these days I might take the time to teach you the difference between a "claim" and stating a default position. But that'll be another day. For now just keep in mind that if I say "little green men don't exist", that's the default position. Not a claim. You have learned so much here, haven't you?
The default position is that militias are necessary for the security of a free state. All the reasons the founders had for providing for militias still exist as I’ve pointed out. Apparently you have not read my posts, but that isn’t surprising—you have clearly read very little of the voluminous material on this subject previously. You have claimed, and I’ve quoted you word for word, militias are no longer necessary. Here it is again. You have also admitted militias were necessary at one time. So something has changed. You need to provide evidence of that change and what caused it. Your claim demands it. We know there is no evidence to back your claim. In fact your Wiki (Wikipedia LOL) link actually verified the existence of one of the primary reasons militias are still necessary—large standing armies. The only thing I learn from you Golem is that you continually make invalid and demonstrably false claims that you can’t back up.
you are the one making the positive claim that militias are no longer necessary. You've been called on this, and you are now trying to shift the burden of proof away from your positive claim. You won't be permitted to do that.
It’s not off topic and I have no burden of proof because it’s a claim YOU made in your thread. LOL You are in way over your head.
Yeh, it’s called the burden of proof fallacy. Pretending that they’ve proven their claims, without actually having done so. Shifting the burden of proof to others, by stating that those people should prove their own stance, while ignoring the burden of proof for the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof to others, by stating that those people should disprove the original claim. Denying that they need to prove their claims.
At least you recognize that Heller is consistent with "other Supreme Court decisions" and they all affirm the individual right. After that you go all scattershot . . . It can not be said that SCOTUS has "created" the right; the Court has always rejected any such idea that the right was created or granted by government action or edict. SCOTUS has consistently held that the right to arms "is not in the text of the 2nd A" but that doesn't help you. All SCOTUS has done is recognize the right to arms is an original, fundamental, retained right, fully possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and no part of the right was surrendered / conferred to he government in the Constitution. SCOTUS has always considered the right to arms "pre-existing"; not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. The question to you is, why do you go so far off the deep end, expending all that energy inspecting words upon which the right does not in any manner depend? SCOTUS has been boringly consistent for going on 145 years telling us your endeavor is folly: Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ." Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . " Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .” In all your "research" what has informed you that the right to arms is created or granted by the 2nd Amendment, allowing you to run the words of the 2nA through your linguistic meat grinder?
No! Subsequent court decisions are consistent with Heller. What else would you expect? We still have the same activist Supreme Court that passed Heller. We'll have to wait for a sane one to set back things to the originalist intentions behind the 2nd A. Anyway... this thread is not about Heller. It's about the 2nd A. If you have anything to say about the topic of this thread, go for it! Exactly! That's what I said! The 2nd A does not in any way address a right to own weapons. Thank you!
Your argument is that "originalist intentions" don't matter, all that matters is what's written and your purposeful parsing, divorced from foundational principle. Your argument is, nothing matters but what the words (as you read them) allow. Please don't contradict yourself pretending originalism matters. I have pointed out that your argument, your endeavor to explain away the individual right, is not legitimate because the right was never placed into the care and control of government. Your argument depends on THAT being the 1789 condition for the right to arms; that the people surrendered it when "We the People" established the Constitution and the framers of the later Bill of Rights gave back to the people a conditioned, qualified, limited shell of the "right" through the 2ndA in 1791. Your argument depends upon separating the words of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution, sanitizing them and examining those words with all philosophical, historical and legal foundation of the Constitution striped away. You must disavow and extinguish the most fundamental principle of the US Constitution, that of conferred powers and retained rights. That you need to pervert and mutate what WORDS SAY, pretty much destroys any credibility you claim that you are only upholding and governed by the rules of English usage. You have no knowledge or understanding of the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment in particular (which is why you make rigid demands on the parameters of the discussion). It is obvious you are just another in a long line of leftist political hacks only interested in advancing an anti-rights & anti-Constitution agenda. Having proven that, my work here is done.
Stop right there. I have said absolutely nothing about "what matters". My point is very simple: the 2nd A does not address an individual right to own weapons. That's all! Simple as that. Now you are just making up B.S. I have NOT said anything about legitimate or not legitimate... No! My argument depends on the fact that, in English, the 2nd A talks about a right to bear arms BECAUSE a militia was necessary. Because that's what the 2nd A says. You go on and on in this post arguing about things I have never said.... Let's see if I can find anything of substance about what I have said. So... other than "pervert and mutate", you have no counter arguments? Not a single phrase in English that would contradict my point on the OP, for example? Ok... So that seals the deal. Thanks for playing... So you see, boys and girls.... the more posters are unable to rebut my arguments (and arguing against things I have not said does not count as a rebuttal), the stronger my point becomes. Here you have another one who tried and failed....
And you know your statement is false. As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know are false? You claimed this before. You cannot demonstrate it to be true. As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know you cannot demonstrate to be true.
You have declared the only discussion you will accept is focused on the text of the 2nd Amendment, that whatever the nature of the right is or is not, as established / explained in other sources, is outside the scope of this thread. You said: Huh? How do you get there from what I said? What I said is what you are arguing is illegitimate when placed in context to the principle of conferred powers and retained rights. If your primary debate tactic is twisting and misconstructing what I said, that destroys your angelic appeal to linguistic purity. I understand what you are arguing, I'm just explaining the implications of that position, what you must ignore and dismiss to rationalize maintaining your position. I also understand why you demand that such considerations are outside the topic of this thread; I simply choose to dismiss and ignore your demand. I'm arguing things it appears you have never considered or wish nobody would point out. What you have said is logically, philosophically, historically and legally incoherent. Those two words are perfect descriptors of your response to my quote of SCOTUS. What does the 9th Amendment say to you? You have repeatedly called the first clause of the 2nd Amendment a "prefatory" clause; is there any particular reason you won't use the descriptor used by the framers? They told us in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights what kinds of clauses the Bill of Rights contained. "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." That explains why the entire Bill of Rights exists and what it is intended to do, and it begs a question about your perverted textual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment . . . The states demanded each of those provisions to prohibit the federal government misusing powers it was granted and inventing powers it was not granted. Promoting the latter is where you seem to have taken up residence. It is beyond any dispute the 2nd Amendment was grounded on/in the opposition of plenary federal power over the Art. I 8, cl's 15 & 16 (organized) militia and the fear of cl. 12 power to create and maintain a standing army . . . So, the question to you is; is it really your position that the states ratified the 2ndA understanding that the language of the 2ndA meant the federal government was empowered to dictate to the people and the states to tell them that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is only secured for those people who the federal government approves of and in the manner the federal government dictates? I know you keep complaining that I'm arguing things you haven't argued . . . All that means is I understand your argument better than you do. It is not only premature, it is unwarranted to declare victory when you constrain acceptable discussion and ignore / dismiss points that rebut if not destroy your position.
I don't buy it, but nice try. If the Founders had intended for the right to bear arms to be solely for the purpose of maintaining a militia, they would have said so. For example ... "The people of a state may keep and bear arms so that a state may organize a well regulated militia." Or ... "Members of a state's well-regulated militia may keep and bear arms." Instead, our Founders set off the right of "the people" from a state's right to form a militia. And they did it simply with a comma. And if the purpose of keeping and bearing arms was solely for the purpose of forming a militia, they would not have added that the right of the people ... "shall not be infringed." For if forming a militia was the sole constitutional justification for keeping and bearing arms, the right to keep and bear arms could be infringed (banned) except for people in a militia. Non-militia members could be banned from owning firearms. And when the Founders spoke of "the people", they were referring to the masses. Otherwise, they would have said so or they wouldn't have phrased it that way. The Founders were really quite clear when they said that the right of the People (not some people) ... shall not be infringed.
It has nothing to do with what I accept. It's what Forum Rules accept. They demand that we stay on topic. And it's for that reason that I must skip parts that are off-topic. There are other threads that deal with those matters. I will point out to you the ones I have on hand. Again: it's not MY demand. I suggest you read forum rules. There are threads where they are on topic. Here I expand on the linguistic aspects. Referring specifically to the meaning of "... to keep and bear arms" (spoiler alert: it's not that you have a right to hunt rabbit) http://www.politicalforum.com/index...p-and-bear-arms.586083/reply"e=1072511786 And here I address some of the historical aspects that demonstrate the same. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ And, of course, you are more than welcome to open a thread about other topics. I will comment on them if I have anything to comment. Again: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ If you have a point to make about the 9th A that has to do with this topic, go for it. I say "prefatory clause" because that's how Scalia referred to it. But to be completely accurate, in grammar it's called an "absolute clause". Technically speaking, that's the correct term. But I have no problem if somebody wants to use Scalia's language. Your quote is irrelevant, not only to this thread, but to my whole all-encompassing point. Which is that the 2nd A simply does not refer or address an individual right to own weapons. This point is made in 3 parts (so far) in this and the two threads I mentioned. I'm not talking about the whole BoR. Only about the 2nd A. And what the 2nd A is intended to do is addressed in the topic about History which I linked above. Nope! That's not what I have argued. I simply argue that any other uses of weapons (besides the use in a well regulated militia) are simply not addressed in the 2nd A. Not to restrict them, not to grant them, not to affirm them.... nothing! The 2nd A just doesn't have anything to do with any sort of personal use of weapons. That's a matter left to the states to decide. That is a topic addressed more thoroughly in the two threads I mentioned above. Which are about what "keep and bear arms" meant in the minds of an average educated English speaker at the time; and about the reasons for enacting the 2nd A as was addressed in the Historians Amicus Brief. If you have anything to say about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A, this is the proper thread to do that. If you want to comment about the idiom "...to keep and bear arms", the appropriate thread is http://www.politicalforum.com/index...p-and-bear-arms.586083/reply"e=1072511786 And if you want to comment on the historical aspect, go to http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ But be forewarned that it's these three topics, as a whole, that demonstrate my main point that the 2nd A does not, in any way (either to guarantee or to remove) address a right to own weapons for individual use. Which means that the historical and linguistics aspects contained in the Heller decision were erroneous. If there was anything else that validates the Heller decision, fine. But the 2nd A does not!
Your interpretation is incorrect. The first clause is a present participle. If you will recall from English 101 a present participle does not affect the noun or verb of a sentence. In the case of the second amendment the noun is People and the verb is shall. As an example of a similar sentence: “A well schooled electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Clearly that sentence is not a limiting principle on the ownership and use of books.
Your argument maintains that the bill of rights is 9 individual rights and 1 collective right then? Seems without much thought that the document called the bill of rights might be a clue as to the context it was written for.
The 2a debate is an illusion made to take every ones mind off one simple fact. Gun manufacturers profits depend upon firearms getting into the hands of criminals. All firearms are supposed to be sold through licensed gun dealers. The conduit to criminals is through these legal sales via private unregulated sales. it’s the legal buyer that needs regulation. 2A has less to do with SELLING firearms. Every gun owner is a potential unregulated distributor to criminals.
Miller and Layton's case that they were protected by the 2nd A WAS dismissed. But that's off-topic. I'm not talking about Miller. I'm talking about the 2nd A as written. And I have provided the evidence. No rebuttals of my arguments so far. Care to give it a whirl?
It's the same as the one I wrote. But latinate absolute constructions used in long, Ciceronian-style sentences like the one in the 2nd A are not used anymore. But they were very natural to any average educated person in the 18th Century. They found no need to clarify further. That has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd A or with my point. The idea here is to rephrase without changing the meaning. As I showed on the OP. This one completely changes the meaning. Commas, at the time, were not used to separate phrases like we do today. In the 18th century they were simply an indication that the reader could take a breath. Nothing more. The first and third comma can be omitted, and the meaning will not change. The second one separates the absolute clause (or "prefatory") from the main clause. This is more thoroughly explained on the linguists' Amicus Brief. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_linguists1.pdf I haven't said that. I have only said that any other purpose is NOT addressed in the 2nd A. They did say so. They said that it was because a well regulated militia was necessary. This is what the OP proves. Not only did they not intend this to mean that there was an individual right to own weapons for personal use. As I demonstrated in another thread, they voted down (and sometimes ridiculed) any attempt to include such "right" http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ But that's a different topic. If you have anything more to say about that, please use that thread.
