Chainsaws are only dangerous if you operate them. Radioactive isotopes are dangerous if you're near them. A chainsaw isn't going to kill you just because you're near it.
That is incorrect. Some are only dangerous if they are ingested. Some are dangerous to be near with no shielding, but shielding is trivial. Some emit penetrating radiation that is hard to shield from. In all three cases it is possible for them to be stored safely if proper procedures are followed.
I don't think people refer to nuclear weapons as something containing yellow cake. You'll have to be inspected by the NRC. I'll imagine you'll need to get the approval of state and local governments. If you are going to do all of that you should probably do nuclear energy production verses keeping a nuke.
But, not only that, Golem, if you read the transcripts of all the arguments, especially that of Patrick Henry, made at the constitutional ratification convention in 1787-9 no talk of an individual right to bear arms was given, the bulk of the argument was the fear that the new constitution would give congress the power to emasculate or otherwise usurp state's militias, particularly that of Virginia, whose signature they needed to ratify the constitution, it was all about militias versus standing armies. Nothing about 'individual right to bear arms' was discussed, debated, whatsoever. It just wasn't on their minds. The second amendment was born out of the need for a collective guarantee in the performance of duties to the states militia which Madison added to placate Virginia's concerns on the issue, because they used militias for slave patrols, and their economy was built on slavery'. Heck, in Patrick Henry's oratory he exclaimed 'they [Congress] are going to take away our negroes'. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3124758?origin=crossref#metadata_info_tab_contents
But shall modifies 'the right', and the right, only. 'Shall' goes only to the right. That right doesn't mention gun numbers, types, caliber, nothing like that. The only way the gov could infringe on the right, is to deny gun ownership. The only way. Regulation has nothing to do with infringing on the right, as long as one is allowed to own a firearm, then the right has been honored. Of course it doesn't. The Constitution, mostly, is the stuff of high minded language, not nuts and bolts laws and policies if such would be better done at the state level. The second amendment, given the word 'state' is in it, is obviously a statement of overall guidance for the states, collectively. So, whether or not someone was required to be in a militia would depend on state policy. As for your point of 'nor does it say the militia had to exist at the time' is a moot point, given, if you read the transcripts of all the arguments made before the constitutional ratification convention, was all about militia versus standing armies, so, that they wouldn't exist, ever, was NOT on their minds. They existed, period, that they wouldn't, that idea didn't occur to them at the ratification of the constitution. That is probably why that issue isn't addressed. The point is, no one is perfect, nor can most people predict the future. They, in fact, lasted for a number of years into the 19th century, and was gradually replaced by a standing army as it eventually was understood that soldiers took their oath to the constitution (as opposed to loyalty to a man), and that oath was seen as rather sacred, such that the big fear of the arguments made at the ratification convention, the arguments against standing armies, that they might be tools of future tyrants, that fear eventually faded because it became apparent that militias aren't as fit for fighting as a conventional army is and soldiers taking their oath to a constitution. Moreover, 'bear arms' gives the second amendment a collective, as opposed to an individual', guarantee. That argument, collective vs individual, has been argued for over 200 years, and wasn't completely settled until Heller. But, since Heller was decided on a 5/4 party line vote, and is rather recent, by precedent setting standards, I wouldn't call that solid grounds.
That is correct. I referred to that in the thread "History 101..." http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ Not only was there little discussion about an individual right to own weapons. When somebody mentioned it, the notion of framing such "right" in the Constitution was ridiculed by Noah Webster who asked sarcastically why not add: “That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.” At the time, owning weapons was like owning a horse, or pants or... a slave (I imagine). It was just another piece of private property. So they felt it would be ridiculous to include it in the Constitution. So they didn't.
Ok. If you want to discuss "bear arms", this thread demonstrate that, at the time the 2nd A was drafted, in ALL writings (articles, books, letters... any document you can think of) the idiom "keep and bear arms" (and similar) ONLY has do with a military-type scenario as explained on the OP Please read the OP before responding.
And by the same token, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the "Militia" was every single male of appropriate age. It was not the military, it was all men. In fact, it was a law until the middle 1800s that several times a year each qualifying male must appear at a prearranged location with their arms and all equipment needed to use them. Then to prove their proficiency in their use. The actual "Army" at that time was small, as in under 1,000 total members.
It's your OPINION, Golem, that there is unbreakable 'linkage' between an American citizen's right to possess and use firearms and a "military-type scenario". OPINION, to which you are welcome... but... it's only OPINION. Let me, then, ask your opinion of an 'alternative' amendment to the Constitution, not involving firearms, but involving something else that many consider to be absolutely necessary in order to live a normal life in this country: "A computer-literate population, being necessary to the operation of everything of any importance in a modern State, the right of the people to keep and use COMPUTERS, shall not be infringed." Does that 'resonate' at all...?
No!!! Yet ANOTHER misconception. But that's a different topic. Here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ In short, it was PROPOSED during the discussion of the 2nd A that it be every single male.... But it was voted down! If you have any comments, make them in the above thread.
Then it was VOTED and PASSED into law by Congress in 1956 by defining the militia as: "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain; not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” The phrase “keep arms” was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to “keep Arms” as an individual right unconnected with militia service. William Blackstone, for example, wrote that Catholics convicted of not attending service in the Church of England suffered certain penalties, one of which was that they were not permitted to “keep arms in their houses.” 4 Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); see also 1 W. & M., c. 15, §4, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) (“[N]o Papist … shall or may have or keep in his House … any Arms … ”); 1 Hawkins, Treatise on the Pleas of the Crown 26 (1771) (similar). Petitioners point to militia laws of the founding period that required militia members to “keep” arms in connection with militia service, and they conclude from this that the phrase “keep Arms” has a militia-related connotation. See Brief for Petitioners 16–17 (citing laws of Delaware, New Jersey, and Virginia). This is rather like saying that, since there are many statutes that authorize aggrieved employees to “file complaints” with federal agencies, the phrase “file complaints” has an employment-related connotation. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else.7 At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (199 , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 199). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶28, used the phrase: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country … .”) Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief 18–23. Without the preposition, “bear arms” normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in Muscarello said. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Petitioners justify their limitation of “bear arms” to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to “keep arms.” It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners’ inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only “bear arms” but also “carry arms,” “possess arms,” and “have arms”—though no one thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349–351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1934). Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10 Cunningham’s legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs (“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms”). And if one looks beyond legal sources, “bear arms” was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment ?, 6 Georgetown J. L. & Pub. Pol’y (forthcoming Sept. 200, online at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086176 (as visited June 24, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of “bear arms” from the founding period). Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html NOTE: That I had to edit out some brackets around some S's to keep the strikethrough from turning on.
This thread is about the 2nd A. It's a PROVEN fact that the framers intended the 2nd A to refer to a military-type scenario. My opinion is not what you state, but it's off-topic here. This thread is intended to be about FACTS. Not opinions. At least on my end.
Whatever the context or background discussions, the wording of the 2nd amendment is quite clear and precise . to wit: "......, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", period. [emphasis mine] It does not say the right of the militia, the right of males 16 to 55, the right of army enrollees, the right of farmers, or the right of hunters, etc. It says "the right of the people."
I would respond to your post in more detail, but I KNOW, given our experience the last time you posted somebody else's opinion, that it's unlikely you would be able to defend what you quote. So it would be a waste of time. So I'll only say this. The OP contains links to the Corpus databases. These are a compendium of every single document written at the time of the founders (letters, books, articles, ... even church signs). And in every single instance in which the idiom "keep and bear arms" (in the way the OP describes) without a qualifier (which the 2nd A doesn't have... but looks like the examples you quote DO... so they don't apply) to mean anything other than a military-related scenario. So.... that settles that....
yeah it's almost like it's not specific therefore any law regarding numbers types caliber or anything like that is an infringement. incorrect any law at all restricting guns is infringement. The purpose of gun laws is specifically to infringe it has no other purpose at all. you know the First amendment talks about religion but it doesn't say quantity or type or denomination so any regulation saying you have to either be Presbyterian or nothing would be perfectly constitutional under the same logic you're using to justify infringement on the Second amendment. this is extraordinarily weak coat for trying to abolish the Constitution. No you're wrong the Constitution is the supreme law of the country all the nuts and bolts must be in alignment with it or they get stumped by the supreme Court as we haven't seen. Every single case regarding the second amendment that ever went to the court was always ruled in favor of the Second amendment. you people get hung up in this militia thing and it's because you don't know what you're talking about. A militia is the people the citizens able-bodied citizens regulating means supplied that means citizens must be allowed to have guns so that they can come together and make a militia. Banning guns of any kind for any reason is to deny the militia. There is loads of documentation on all of this you're choosing to ignore it all because you want to undermine the Second amendment the only reason you would want to do that is because you support an authoritarian government.
Yes it does all gun laws are unconstitutional because they all would have to infringe on your right to keep in bare arms that is the purpose of them that is the only purpose of them. The second amendment was to forbid that. It's Stone Cold simple and you don't get it or you're being dishonest about it.
We already established in the other thread, which was about THAT topic, that if you alter the 2nd A and cherry-pick parts of it (eliminating the prefatory clause, for example), you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Sadly, the framers would probably not take kindly to people doing that. Here is the thread on that topic, where it's explained why we shouldn't do that. Feel free to comment there. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/ You confuse the argument because these threads need to be read in order. The above thread goes first. The right to keep guns and defend their country BECAUSE a well regulated militia was necessary at the time to do that, was most definitely "of the people". The standing army would not do, so there was no other choice.
Again: Argue with Justice Ginsburg as cited, and the various linguists she and the Court in Heller cite, don't argue with me. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11
Indeed instead it prohibits the government from INFRINGING on the right. 2a is not a grant of a right its a restriction on the government. That you don't know this means you've turned the wrong direction very early and its no wonder you are hopelessly lost.
So again you admit you expect me to argue with somebody who is not here. That is contrary to forum rules. If YOU have a point to make, YOU make it. References, quotes, links.... they should be used to support your point. Not to make if for you. But, anyway, I'm glad I didn't go into more detail to rebut your post. I'll debate with anybody HERE. Be it Ginsburg, Scalia, Alexander Hamilton, ... anybody. But if you bring the topic, and you don't understand what they're saying... what would be the purpose. Thanks anyway...
That's funny because it's clear you don't even KNOW what Ginsburg agrees with... Exactly like you didn't know what the linguists you quoted in the other thread were saying. Anyway... If you can't make a point (and you just admitted for the second time that you can't), I'm not wasting my time anymore. Thanks for playing...
No, it was not "voted down". In fact, it was still required by the Militia Law of 1792 that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside". And that they appear as required (at least 4 times a year) with a musket, bayonet, spare flints, a cartridge box with at least 24 cartridges, and a backpack. And in addition, they possess a powder horn with 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 balls, and a pouch for containing So no, it was not "voted down", it was part of US law! Go ahead and look up the Militia Act of 1792. Which was replaced with the Militia Act of 1795, which required the same thing. The simple fact is, you do not like it and the Second Amendment, so try to force others to your insane beliefs. The only problem is, that you are wrong almost every single time. It was not "voted down", it was and has been the law since before the Constitution, and still to this day. And it is also clearly stated multiple times in the Federalist Papers, specifically number 29. Which in case you are not aware was actually written by the people who wrote the Constitution. But please, tell us when this was "voted down". Especially as it has been part of US Law for over 200 years.
All that is necessary for change is the examination of the meaning of "infringe" and the consideration of the right to some arms as being sufficient. As long as there are weapons that can be purchased and born, the "right" is technically preserved. This is not a personal recommendation, it is merely a recognition of what may be imposed if 2A extremists continue with their radical attitudes.
