Yeah... because the Ku Klux Klan had a computer database in the 19th century like the ones I mentioned... Folks! It's responses like this one that unequivocally demonstrate that the arguments on the OP are right on target. Because if there WERE actual counter-arguments, I'm sure there would be a gun advocate out there who would show them. Instead, we have absurd statements like the one quoted above. Which we can only laugh at. I started this thread over a year and a half ago. And after 30 pages this type of "arguments" is ALL they can come up with to rebut the OP. There is no possible conclusion other than that.... they HAVE no rebuttal. But I'm not claiming victory. Maybe it's just that the poster who CAN rebut this is out there somewhere and will one day counter facts with facts. I'm not holding my breath, but I AM patient.
no but they had your argument yeah and all this stupid courts in their lawyers don't know nothing. I'll let the heller decision speak for me. Folks who are you going to trust the supreme Court with people who studied law for decades or some internet know it all. the supreme Court already rebuted you. IE DC v Heller
I don't HAVE an argument. The arguments I submit are by scientists who used a scientific analysis to determine facts. Exactly!!! You make for me the point I made in a different thread. It's the HELLER decision that creates this individual "right" to own weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't create, affirm, grant,... or in any way address this "right". You have been more helpful in making my points than, I'm sure, you are even aware. Oh... BTW, the thread in question is this one.... http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ (and a subsequent follow up thread about the militia) I know you won't read it either (or, if you do read it, you'll have no comment relevant to THAT OP), but I just thought I'd mention it.
no the Heller decision clears it up for scammers like you. The Klan has been pulling the same scam you're trying here since their inception. It's nothing to do it's old hat it's been argued against did your making the same point the KKK did to deny black people the ability to defend themselves It was the original intent when they wrote the amendment that everybody can own a weapon. There's multiple sources for this but you just ignore that your point that the supreme Court knows better than you everybody knew that before you made your point. Wait a minute down did my statements help your point or are they not relevant because it can't be both. You really need to make up your mind.
It CAN be both. I present a scientific analysis, made by scientists in the field of linguistics using databases and informatic tools, and your response.... It's not "Here is a different study that rebuts the ones you presented " or "Here are the flaws in that scientific analysis" or... anything like that. Instead it's "They're KKK!". Which, even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. But the fact that that's your response means you are one more in a line of pro-gun posters who have no serious response. And every time one of you guys appear, my point is made more solid by the lack of counter-arguments. Don't bother overthinking it. I TOLD you you had been more helpful than even you yourself realized.
no scientists or studies regarding their opinions are valid. We're talking about in the realm of legality the experts in that field are judges and lawyers. Try and save face however you wish.
Well well the historical facts regarding legality. And you're conveniently cherry-picking the historical facts that the argument you're making is a ku Klux Klan argument, that was made to deny black people the ability to defend themselves. Go ahead and fall on that sword.
But it's only historical fact the beginning of the Civil war. The argument that the right isn't for the individual was just a way to stop freed black slaves from being armed. You're ignoring history prior to that to only focus on white supremacy.
others are correct-the fact of freed slaves is what caused racist Democrat judges to start rewriting the intent of the second amendment
It has not been debunked. The "keep" part of that idiom includes ownership and possession of the weapon. And "keep" includes ownership and possession of what is being kept. Not really. The OP focuses excessively on "bear" and does not address "keep". You did address "keep" in other posts. But as it turned out, "keep" includes ownership and possession. It is not the scientific argument that I object to. It is your mischaracterization of the scientific argument that I object to. It is appropriate to focus on one word when that word is highly relevant. People have been rebutting your claims with facts all throughout this thread. That is incorrect. The Heller decision upholds an existing right that has been around for thousands of years.
Much like the word "cake" is when you say that something is "a piece of cake". Which doesn't meant it's made of flour, milk and sugar. It's an idiom! You CAN'T separate idioms into individual words in order to understand them. The IDIOM "keep and bear arms" has a very distinct meaning that has NOTHING to do with owning or not owning. And the scientific evidence that PROVES this is provided by linguists in the links I gave. But, of course, science denial comes easy to right-wingers. So there is not much more I can add that would have any effect on science denialism. The science is there. If you think science is valuable, you consider its conclusions. And you can even counter it. But a rational person would need OTHER scientific evidence. But if you prefer dogma over science you just deny it. You have chosen to blindly deny science. And there is nothing anybody can do to remedy that.
no one buys into this nonsense. It runs counter to the obvious intent of the founders and the current events at the time the bill of rights were enacted. What do you think you are accomplishing other than causing windmills to laugh at you? Are you trying to convince yourself that your anti gun hatred is not also attacking the constitutional rights of the USA?
So I guess you were wrong to focus only on "bear" in your OP? That is incorrect. "Keep" includes ownership and possession of those arms. That is incorrect. The linguists agree that "keep" includes ownership and possession. You deny the science every time you deny that keeping and bearing arms includes owning and possessing those arms. And the science says that keeping and bearing arms includes ownership and possession of those arms. Its conclusions are that keeping and bearing arms includes owning and possessing those arms. That is incorrect. I am in agreement with the science.
In isolation, keep does not mean "personally possess at home". However, the phrase keep and bear arms most likely is an idiom. An earlier draft of the Second Amendment exempted people from bearing arms for religious reasons. When the draft was discussed in the House of Representatives, Congressman Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania raised the objection that this would lead to "the right of keeping arms" being violated. How is that possible if keeping arms meant "personally possess guns at home"? People excluded from militia could still personally possess guns at home. Clearly, "keeping arms" had a military meaning in this context. "Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, 'No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.' He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms." https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html
can you claim that the founders intended the federal government have any power to restrict what arms private citizens owned-and if so-cite the relevant part of the constitution
I did NOT! If somebody were to use your tactic of arbitrary cherry-picking words, they could say that "right to bear arms" means that they have a right to rip the arms of a bear for consumption. The reasons we know that is not what the 2nd A is referring to are exactly the same we know that it doesn't refer to owning weapons. And they are context, linguistics, history and common sense. All four of them addressed in the four threads I opened about this topic. Here you choose to ignore all four of them. And what is your argument to counter that of scientists in linguistics, philologists and historians: nothing more than wishful thinking. Writing "that is incorrect" over and over will not due. Arguments that are at a minimum based on research that is similar in quality to what these experts did is required. Anything else is a waste of time....
There is no credible definition of "keep" (or of "keep and bear arms") that does not include possession of those arms. He didn't go into detail, but the progression that he laid out was this: People use religion to avoid militia duty > militia becomes undependable > violation of the right to keep arms. Presumably he was thinking that if the militia was not a dependable source of national protection, the forces of tyranny would say that there was no reason for people to be armed, and would then move to disarm them. Not if the forces of tyranny prevented them from doing so. Yes. It is military weapons that people have the right to keep and bear.
Nonsense. Where in your OP did you ever cover the meaning of "keep"? That person would be deliberately using the wrong meanings or the words. Sort of like you do when you pretend that keep and bear arms does not include possession of those arms. The Second Amendment does refer to owning weapons. Context says that the Second Amendment refers to owning weapons. Linguistics says that the Second Amendment refers to owning weapons. History says that the Second Amendment refers to owning weapons. It never fails that people who oppose civil liberties will always invoke some variation of "common sense". That is incorrect. I directly address the first three when I point out the fact that they support me and oppose you. That is incorrect. I do not argue against the scientists, since they support me and oppose you. It is appropriate that people challenge your untrue claims. Those experts support me and oppose you.
Bingo!!!! That's what happens when you eliminate context and history when interpreting an idiom, the way you did with the word "keep".
no real experts support Golem. That is why FDR had to create a mutated Commerce Clause to justify his gun control schemes
