In my experience, what the anti gun advocates really don't like is not the actual right, but the voting patterns and cultural values of the people who embrace the right
You do not - indeed, you can not - have the right to keep and bear guns owned by someone else. You can only have the right to keep and bear guns you own. Disproven, above, and several times elsewhere.
This is, of course, proven false by the multiple times the term is used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Of course you can. The military do it all the time. You are now entering the realm of utter nonsense.
I'm talking ONLY about the "militia" referenced in the 2nd A. Please try to focus. A militia in which people were automatically enrolled was discussed and voted DOWN. Off-topic here, though. This is what you need to read. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/
Which only matters if you can demonstrate "the people" in the 2nd was intended to have a different meaning than "the people " when used everywhere else. And you can't. Thus, your complaint fails and my point stands.
Makes ZERO difference to my point. Clearly you STILL haven't understood my point. I recommend before you participate in any thread, that you read the Opening Post to understand what the thread is ABOUT.
This statement is, of course, false, and you knew it was false when you made it. Soldiers do not have a right to do anything, especially with their firearms -- they are ordered/commanded to so. Thus, your complaint fails and my statement stands: As there is no right to possess or use something owned by someone else, the right to keep and bear arms necessitates the right own those arms.
Who said anything about "right"? You said (quoting YOU): "...indeed, you can not". They CAN! And they don't OWN the guns they keep and bear. The fact that you try to tap dance is clear indication that you had no arguments to begin with. I'm starting to think I shouldn't be taking you too seriously. But I'm still hoping somebody will come who can make a SERIOUS case. Probably not you, though.
tThat is the point, identify and vilify political opposition. The left is quick to play the Free Speech card until they disagree with someone’s speech.
No one is limiting your free speech here. Feel free to address the arguments that have actually been made.
The meaning of the term is not always as individualistic as you would like it to be. For example, Article I says that members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen by the people. Does that mean that every adult citizen in a Congressional district has to vote in order for an election to be considered constitutional? I don't think so. Apparently, a subset of citizens voting is good enough to satisfy the requirement that members of the House be chosen by the people. As for its meaning in the Second Amendment: "But the libertarian reading must contend with textual embarrassments of its own. The amendment speaks of a right of 'the people' collectively rather than a right of 'persons' individually. And it uses a distinctly military phrase: 'bear arms.' A deer hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained additional language that 'no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.' Even in the final version, note how the military phrase 'bear arms' is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the 'militia' and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the quartering of 'soldiers' in times of 'war' and 'peace.' Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used the phrase 'bear arms' in military contexts and no other." https://newrepublic.com/article/73718/second-thoughts
you purposely missed the point… typical of you. But, the irony is, in doing so, it is an attempt to limit my speech. you long ago failed to make a cogent point on anything related to the 2A or on gun Control.
Exactly. The right to bear arms is a condition that the ability to call a militia in times of need is predicated on, a state of readiness, whereby the people can, if necessary- form militias to defend themselves or the nation. When the civil war started, the Union army was greatly outnumbered by the Confederates, and Lincoln called for 75,000 men to form Militias. There was neither time nor money to recruit, train and equip such an increase. The people formed their own militias, brought their own weapons, elected three own officers- and the Union forces quadrupled in a few weeks. Saved the nation. The people themselves are the ultimate reserve defense force of the nation.
true-and the ad hoc nature of an emergency military force (ie a MILITIA made up of people who are neither professional soldiers or constantly on duty) is why private citizens need to be able to own military grade individual weapons
The constitution. The right to keep and bear arms. You cannot have a right to use something you do not own. Soldiers do not have a right to do anything, especially with their firearms; thus, they are not an example of having a right to do something with something you do not own. The fact that you try to tap dance is clear indication that you had no arguments to begin with.
the desperation of the gun banners concerning the Second is evident when they pretend that "keep and bear" excludes (yes intentionally was intended to exclude) OWN
Cool! There you have it folks! The Constitution says soldiers have a right to bear arms. Or... maybe not. This poster still hasn't made up his/her mind.
