That is incorrect. Owning and possessing weapons is covered under keeping them. That is incorrect. The OP focusses solely on "bear", and does not address the meaning of "keep" at all.
With all the manipulation of language that has gone on in recent years, how can these most adamant of 2 A fundamentalists find comfort is the nuances upon which they alone insist?
The fact that we are 100% historically correct is a great comfort. It's always easy for us to win when facts and reality back us up 100%. Progressives never understand this. They can't figure out that all their lies will never manage to overpower reality.
Clarify: who are the "2A extremists with their radical attitudes"? Those pushing for restrictive gun control or those supporting the 2A?
the gun banners never seem to understand that they must establish a proper power in Article One Section Eight for the federal government to ban guns, before the second amendment is ever in play
It may not at all be a matter a "banning guns", merely a modification of the all-encompassing scope of interpretation concerning the famous amendment. "Infringed" is not necessarily as narrow as some would have it. Note that none of my posts has proposed any measure of new controls, only pointed out that the extreme position taken by so many may easily result it excesses on the part of those who do not like firearms.
On behalf of the gun rights movement I deny all permission to modify the Second Amendment in any way whatsoever. That you characterize defense of civil liberties as extreme is pretty Orwellian. And it's an empty threat. The gun control movement is like that knight without arms and legs in that Monty Python sketch.
It clearly does. Like you have been so wrong on this its not even funny. Not only are you grammatically incorrect you are right now in this very moment getting owned in court on every single one of your talking points. Gun laws are getting rolled back all across the country.
Yeah it does, it says that explicitly. 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.
yeah it clearly does this guy's like a flat earther with this. no way you can't be serious you mean all the supreme Court justices and all the history of are Republic actually no more than some communist on the internet? No way, anonymous communist posting on the internet no everything everybody knows this. Lol No no no he's not getting owned in court see the Illuminati and the lizard people together with the people who are trying to convince you that the Earth is round have teamed up together to assign justices to the supreme Court that and go against this idea that the Constitution doesn't say what it says.
Well it is been well-established the limit for which firearms you can keep and bear. It's those that you can keep and bear for a lawful purpose.
So you have just demonstrated it doesn't say "own weapons". Before you respond (IF you intended to respond with a real argument), please make sure you read the OP. Otherwise it would be a waste of time. Keep in mind that repeating dogma that has been hammered into your head by decades of right wingnut propaganda is not considered a "real argument".
arms is a synonym for weapons. is there something in your up that says arms and weapons are not synonyms? this has nothing to do with it propaganda you're playing a semantics game. In this context arms means weapons. Google it. But it'll read your op.
You're making the 19th century argument against the Second amendment and the 19th century argument was to keep black people who are freed slaves from being armed. Go back a couple of decades to the founding.
His entire attempt to mutate the second amendment so it doesn't prevent the gun bans he wants fails at the level of inquiry before we get to the second amendment-that being the tenth
Well the argument that it isn't an individual right was introduced in the 19th century specifically to deny the rights to feed blacks. He's making the ku Klux klan argument All through the early 1800s the southern states were enacting laws to deny slaves gun ownership rights. After slavery was abolished and over the next couple of decades gun control laws were specifically aimed at blacks. 1911 New York made sure only police can decide who owns guns specifically to deny them to black people. D.C v Heller debunks him completely.
Also, D.C.v Heller debunks your claim. Supreme court trumps Internet knowitall every time. Sorry you wasted your time with your op.
"Keep" covers ownership. Even if it were true that someone were merely repeating dogma, it isn't true that repeated dogma couldn't be a real argument. But you are just arbitrarily labeling people's arguments as repeated dogma so you can use this excuse to avoid confronting the fact that you are wrong.
that's some petty little word play he's getting mad and I don't think anybody regarding constitutional scholars agrees with him on his alternative interpretation on the word keep or arms. repeated dogma as I take it is just fancy way of saying arguments he knows but can't debate. Alas some people just can't accept that they're wrong about things. The supreme Court said he's wrong doesn't get much more final than that.
What??? I am making an argument based on CURRENT scientific analysis using MODERN linguistic tools. Well... I guess that ONE way to avoid reality is to not read what you are responding to. Don't bother. I'm sure some serious poster will eventually show up with a serious argument to rebut mine the scientists'.
Why do you keep saying this that was already debunked? The idiom is "keep and bear arms". The WHOLE idiom has one distinct unequivocal meaning that is not the same as cherry-picking one word. It BECOMES a real argument, according to Goebels. It doesn't actually become reality, though. Not when it DENIES reality. Look... this is very simple: scientists in linguistics have shown PROOF of what the idiom "keep and bear arms" meant in the 18th Century. A complete thorough scientific analysis using the tools provided by modern informatics has PROVEN it had no other meaning than what is described by the OP. Now... science CAN be wrong. But then you would need to SHOW some sort of evidence of that. Even so much as a logical argument. But if the only argument you can think of is cherry-picking ONE word from a full expression, what you accomplish is to give further support to the scientific argument.
yes my years of studying this issue resulted in clear evidence that some state-and sadly federal judges-tried to pervert the meaning of the second to allow restrictions on freed blacks and "papists" . There was much racism and anti -Catholic animus in the 1934 NFA (almost all the gangsters that were the excuse for that law were Italian Catholics)
no you're making the ku Klux Klan argument it's for the late 19th century. Gun ownership is not an individual right so you can deny black people rights that's the whole point of this that's all it ever was throughout all the history of America. Your argument is racist Don't pretend like you think anyone could rebut your asinine argument. You think you know better than the supreme Court. So I don't know why you even bother with this are you looking for followers? Do you think you're God?
I cannot tell you how many times I have been approached by country club wives who tell me "we really don't worry about people like YOU having guns"......
