Before reading this, I would suggest you first read the OP of the following threads. Or at least be aware of the content: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-gun-advocates.585785/page-10#post-1072516064 http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ First of all, let me explain what my argument is NOT. There seems to have been some confusion about the above posts. 1- It is NOT that our forefathers did not value people owning firearms. They did! So stop trying to prove that. We all know it. It has nothing to do with any of these threads. 2- It is NOT that the 2nd A limits the right to own weapons. Somebody came up with this strange conclusion. 3- It is NOT that an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. It does! Thanks to the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. It was legislation passed by Scalia, in my opinion, but that will be a different topic. 4- It is NOT whether or not this individual "right" should exist. Well... I do believe it shouldn't. But that's not what this thread is about. There is one simple fact: during the debates about the 2nd A, there was a lot of debate about militias. But very little about an individual right to own weapons. It was just... not an issue. People owned guns, like they owned a shirt, a house or a horse. It was just another piece of property. Owning guns was not a controversial issue at the time. Our forefathers probably felt no need to address it in the Bill of Rights. But very little mention of an individual right to own weapons were in the discussions about the 2nd A. And in the few instances when there was, it was quickly dismissed. For instance, the minority anti-Federalists of Pennsylvania wanted to include "... for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals." It was not only voted down, it was ridiculed. During the debates, Noah Webster 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.” Most of the framers didn't trust a standing army to defend us. So our "army" were the militias. Our nations depended on the militias for our national defense. But they also feared that the states would neglect the militias. So it's more plausible that the 2nd A was meant to protect the right of the people to form part of the militias. Bottom line: an individual right to own weapons was simply not addressed in the 2nd A . They just didn't feel the need. And, if they did, they felt it would be more appropriate for States to decide their own rules. One other thing: at the time, "militias" were government controlled military institutions. There is a misconception that everybody was automatically enrolled in a militia once they reached a certain age. That is false. Even though it was considered a civic duty, they had to sign up. Just like today voting is a right, and it's a civic duty, but many states require that you register to vote. And it was a RIGHT to sign up. That right was protected by the 2nd A https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf
As you've been shown in those other threads, your interpretation of what the 2nd A says and means is quite demonstrably incorrect. This thread follows the same pattern of you trying to redefine words, and pretend the authors of the amendment, of whom you have been provided pages upon pages of direct quotes from them, agree with your interpretation when it has been proven with their own words that you are incorrect. Having had your previous 2 threads on this topic demolished on the first page, you are simply trolling at this point, and it's quite obvious.
I went through this whole thing. Which, BTW, I found only by chance, given that there are no quotes that would trigger an alert for me to notice it(by design?). I found absolutely NOTHING that has to do... even remotely... with the topic of the thread where it was posted. That one was about the meaning of the idiom "keep and bear arms" at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, as proven by Corpus Linguistics. But instead of admitting to myself that I had wasted my time trying to find in it some sort of relevant point, I decided to rescue this part. And moved it to this thread (read the OP... it's a different thread) so I could make my point clearer. Yes! Absolutely! And they had that right! Just like they had a right to own boots, pots and pans, and soap. To the framers, including an individual right to own guns would be as ridiculous as including the right to own shirts, or the right to eat or to sleep.... (all of which, BTW, were also "necessary to the defence of a free state") This is why the very few discussions there were when framing the 2nd A, in which somebody argued that this individual right should be included were voted down and sometimes mocked. So it wasn't.
So that means that it's not the 2nd A that secures this individual right to own guns. Not sure what you're trying to say, but answer one question: Why do you think there was so little talk about an individual right to own guns during the debates that resulted in the 2nd A? And that, even when there were proposals that would secure such individual right, they were voted down? Ok ok... that was two questions...
The imperative free applies to the individual, not the state. A militia is necessary to secure individual freedom. (Arms are necessary for individuals to form a militia), therefore the right of the people (individuals) cannot be infringed.
The thread this was taken for was about the meaning of the idiom "keep and bear arms". But the subject is more appropriate for this one. Please be sure to read the OP. It's a different thread. It was! What gave rise to the discussion about the right to "bear arms" was that before the Constitution, the militias were completely regulated only by the states. The constitution changed that (see Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16). Anti-federalists argued that Congress might neglect the militias by failing to provide proper funding So the 2nd A protects the right of the people to participate in the militias, and the right of the states to regulate them. A very common dogma to the far-right. But it's a myth. However, it's irrelevant in this discussion because the 2nd A does protect the individual's right to form part of militias that are regulated and provided for either by the states or by Congress. I might take that up that myth sometime on another thread. But, for this one, let's stick to what the 2nd A SAYS. Or, if you want to open a thread on the matter, let me know and I'll share my position.
An adjective that precedes a noun generally applies to that noun. But I have no idea what this has to do with this whole subject. So I wouldn't know what else to comment. Guns are necessary to bear arms. As is eating every day and drinking water. That doesn't mean that any of those rights are protected by the 2nd A. Are you now going back to the original thread? You can either address the meaning of "bear arms" or the history behind the 2nd A (topic of this thread). You keep jumping from one to the other. Please be aware that there are three different threads. One about the grammar in the sentence, another about the meaning of the idiom "keep and bear arms", as would have been interpreted by any moderately educated person at the time (as well as by the framers) and this one about the history of the 2nd A.
The right of the militia is being conflated with one not given to the individual. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern. The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html
Since this thread- http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ -has been referenced by the OP I’m going to link to information demonstrating the thread is predicated on disinformation. The sources the OP used were fraudulent. This post demonstrates that fraud. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072518284/
You ignoring the intent of the bill of rights is very relevant to the discussion. It’s not dogmatic to understand the true intent of the founders which is the whole point of the discussion. Individual rights and liberties matter. Unless you are a collectivist. You are ignoring the premise and compartmentalising. That is dogmatic, and typical of the left.
Probably the key point, one to which even an extremist like Scalia conceded, is the right to bear arms is not absolute. "..colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the “right to keep and bear arms,” whether embodied in Federal or State Constitutions, or the background common law. And those examples include substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, including regulations that imposed obstacles to the use of firearms for the protection of the home."
both have been addressed. You've been shown that your interpretation has no basis in law or the rules of grammar. You've been shown this by the actual words of the actual men who drafted the amendment, as well as every single court that has had this issue before them.
No I'm not. I addressed it in the OP. However, it is irrelevant to the point I'm making Whatever you think the intent is, I have demonstrated, and you have failed to even address (let alone rebut), that the intent was NOT to grant an individual right to own weapons. As shown, that was among the last things in the framers' minds when they discussed the 2nd A. Barely discussed. And even the little discussion about it that there was was succinctly voted down and ridiculed. But you refuse to address my point (above, in bold). And it looks like there is nobody on the right that can even address it. Only possible explanation is that they are unable.
So you believe it's the state that must possess the freedom. Gotcha. When a Republican leadership leads the state, can they form a Republican militia that seeks out Democrat voters, confiscates their guns on the basis that they are not part of the militia, and throws them in prison in order to protect the freedom of the Republican state? Or do you think the constitution is written to protect the freedom of the individual citizens of the state?
We can look to the Federalist #46 The right of the militia is clear in this context. The militia is a body formed of individual people, who posses an individual right to own arms. The militia is directed and regulated by those same individual people and a local government which would be expected to most closely represent the interest of the local people...
The word "militia" is mentioned twice in the Constitution's 7 articles. Article I, Sec. 8 and Article II, Sec. 2. Each time it is referred to as a supplemental to the US Army. Article I, Sec. 8 explicitly says it is the job of Congress to organize militias, and obviously the prez is the C-I-C of the military, so clearly militias are under federal jurisdiction. States, according the the Constitution, can choose the leaders of their respective militias but that's the extent of their power. So much for your theory of individual rights to bear arms outside of the context of a militia.
Dear God! Do you know what the word "state" means? Anyway... your attempt at changing the subject is too obvious. My question was: why do you think it was that, in all the discussions, both at a state level and at a national level, leading up to the 2nd A, the references to an individual right to own guns were almost non-existent during. And that, what few proposals there were that would include such language in the text of the 2nd A, were voted down? The Constitution was written because we were constituting a new nation. It lists the freedoms, obligations, powers, rights, functions... both of individuals and of the government. Now... can you answer my question or not?
The 2nd amendment literally says "the right of the people (individual) shall not be infringed". It is not dependent upon being in a militia. It's why this argument has lost every single time it's been tried in court.
You keep referring the the SC's decisions as though the outcomes would not have been different if the cases came before courts with liberal majorities. Heller, for example, was a 5-4 decision with Stevens and Breyer eviscerating the majority opinion.
no, I keep referring to what the amendment specifically and clearly says. And their opinion, and $1 will get you a cup of coffee. The facts remain. The second amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms having no connection to membership in any militia.
That was the interpretation of the conservative majority, destroyed by Stevens, and in no way established by the language in the 2nd. With characteristic clarity, the first three sentences of his opinion in Heller dissolved a decades-old false dichotomy: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.13 This is profoundly correct, and deftly sidesteps an unhelpful debate in which Second Amendment scholarship had been mired for decades. Similarly, in McDonald, the Justice demolished the misunderstanding that the gun debate is simply about constitutional rights on one side of the equation and regulatory priorities on the other. Too often, that frame leads to the conclusion that only gun owners have constitutionally relevant interests. But as Justice Stevens noted, “Your interest in keeping and bearing a certain firearm may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence.”14 https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/stevens-j-dissenting-the-legacy-of-heller/ The Second Amendment, which reads “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,” is a linguistic mess. Not even the placement of the commas is certain. What is certain, though, is that for 200 years the vast majority of judges interpreted it to protect only those arms, people, and activities having some connection to an organized militia.
Such a long post just to say nothing about the topic of this thread... Why go into all the trouble? Answer me this: why do you think it was that when the 2nd A was debated in state legislatures, as well as a a national level, , there was barely any reference to an individual right to own weapons? And that even in the few instances in which an individual right to own weapons for personal use was mentioned, the idea was summarily voted down... sometimes even ridiculed?
