And my point was that the militia was not the only reason to bear arms. Since the militia was not the only reason to bear arms, not having a militia would not negate the freedom to bear arms. The need to bear arms would not have disappeared when there was no militia. Remember what the 2A says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." That statement is an absolute. Not conditional
Whether or not there is an "absolute" right to bear arms that is independent of the 2nd A is beyond the scope of this topic. Which only about the text of the 2nd A. But if you believe that there is such a right, then you should be protesting much more vehemently for Trump having denied that absolute right to transgender people.
The point was to allow both states and people to protect themselves, and not have to be made reliant on some outside third party. It is true the primary point had to do with the states, but the people were also added into that, probably for the reason that they didn't want the federal government applying laws against the citizens of that state to circumvent the powers of that state from being able to maintain a militia. And who says that state's right is totally irrelevant today? In theory, it could still serve a purpose in times of emergency, especially if there was some ill will between the current federal government and one or a group of states (Although admitingly it has never needed to be used during the entire history of the country)
It doesn't have to do with the states. It has to do with the state as a whole. The country, that is. Your interpretation doesn't seem quite compatible with the discussions that took place at the time. But it makes no difference to my point, so let's leave it at that. There is no right of the state. There is a right of the people to bear arms in defense of their country. It could serve a purpose today regarding the right to defend the country as a whole. Which today is done by the armed forces. Under this interpretation the right would have been infringed by Trump when he didn't allow transgender Americans to serve in the military.
Your logic is flawed in numerous ways. The wording says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." First, as I have said, the words are unambiguous. There is no exceptions to "shall not be infringed" .as written. At that times they would have used arms for other purposes such as self defense and hunting. They would not have taken away those arms just because there was no militia at the time. The obvious intent is that they would retain those weapons. The other weakness is in the militia part itself. The intent at the time it was written was that they would already own weapons. It would not be reasonable to take away their weapons when there was no militia and then expect them to suddenly be available when the militia is activated. They would neither own weapons or be familiar with those weapons. And finally, the 2A does not even require an individual to belong to a militia. Your argument is so flawed it is pathetic.
Ok? The fact remains. Your position was destroyed the first time you posted it. Your interpretation has no basis in law or under the rules of grammar. It’s why it’s lost in court every time it’s been made.
I understand you went through a convoluted grammatical exercise which ignored the reality of the situation.
When scientists in linguistics explain the meaning of phrases in English as they would have been understood at the time, they call it "semantic quibbles" or "convoluted grammatical excercise". When activist justices make up arbitrary meanings that are incompatible with the science of linguistics, they call it "originalism" You already made up your mind. And no amount of logic, no reason, no science and, most certainly, no facts... are going to change your dogma. I am telling you this so you understand why it is I don't bother to take you seriously... Unless I can think of something funny to say.
Are you pretending you have not already made up your mind? When someone tries to contrive a different meaning out of a very straight forward statement, we call it laughable.
I does not make any difference to your argument, but one of your examples is not technically correct. The library can close whether books are necessary or not. It should not close because books are necessary. Of course, even the books being necessary part is questionable.
In other words, you are pretending you have not already made up your mind. Not a strawman. You did not think out your analysis very well. Otherwise, you would not have made such an obvious error. Makes us all wonder how much effort was put into that laughable so called analysis.
Are you telling me you really didn't understand the OP? I can't believe that. It has to be a strawman. The alternative would be so much worse for you.
The obvious error popped out to me without even thinking about it. You had to be unconscious when you wrote it not to notice.
LOL. Three pages and still no evidence offered to support the personal opinion a militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state.
Ah yes, the losing side always screams “activist judges” and suddenly find very important words in the decent. When the losing side wins, the decent bare a bunch of morons and activism had nothing to do with it. I see you are sore about it and feel you are more qualified than the 5 judges that do not agree with you. No thanks to any ideas on gun control that ban semi autos from everyone but the same cops that get protested for violence. Just not a fan of the idea of giving all the firepower to the state. And the standard answer to gun control folks during Biden Administration: Gosh darn it, lost all my guns. Wish I could register and or hand them over. Damn boat.
Clearly you're in way over your head here, kid. Still waiting for a serious poster who can respond to my arguments.
