If you want to pretend that facts are not facts. And then that Congress would pass an amendment to protect gun ownership without ever mentioning gun ownership in their deliberations... my case is made. Thanks for playing.
Except they DID mention gun ownership, which is part and parcel of keeping arms. Again: You haven't demonstrated that doesn't include gun ownership. More than one poster has inquired about that and you refuse to answer. What was that you said about refusing to answer?
he pretends that a government that cannot prevent Keeping and bearing COULD outlaw ownership. In what alternative universe does that argument make sense?
Yes. And keeping an arm included having it in your possession. That is incorrect. The NRA did not change anything. Yes. That is why we have the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons. Light machine guns at the very least. That is incorrect. Keeping an arm included having it in your possession. That is incorrect. You are making quite a few untrue assertions. Generally people only show evidence after someone asks for a cite. Anyway, note the word "keep" in the Second Amendment. People have a clear right to keep their arms. Is there any relevance to the question of whether they discussed ownership? I am loath to spend my precious time discussing positions that have little relevance. The answer to that is easy. Protecting the preexisting individual right of free people to keep and bear arms ensured that militiamen could supply their own guns if Congress declined to arm them. That is incorrect. Keeping arms includes possession of those arms. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. So in other words, we need to keep voting for Republicans, because the left is out to abolish freedom and violate our civil liberties. Because people have the right to keep their arms. Having the government keep all the arms is contrary to the people keeping their arms. We did? I recall there being an agreement that it doesn't even matter who is in a well-regulated militia, given the fact that it is the entire people who have the individual right to keep and bear arms. I didn't realize that we were looking for that. I certainly wasn't looking for it. Why would it even matter whether ownership of weapons was discussed in Congress? That is incorrect. Keeping arms includes possessing them.
of course that is true. it is hilarious trying to pretend Keeping and bearing excludes owning or carrying etc. . It's desperation
It can "include" whatever you want it to include. But it doesn't IMPLY owning them. Your statement makes NO difference to anything I have said. The rest of your post boils down to responding "that is incorrect" to my statements, but with NO response to my arguments.
You're right it doesn't IMPLY anything, it outright states it. The definition of to keep includes ownership. Arms includes all arms, including firearms. The 1st and 4th amendments protect your rights, despite increases in technology the founders literally could not have dreamed of. They COULD anticipate more effective firearms, that's pretty straightforward and numerous advances were had in their day that it was clear would become more practical and advanced with time. The puckle gun, for instance, made prior to the revolution, shows how firearms will develop over the next century. Things like the girandoni air rifle were admired by Jefferson. Flying through the ****ing air, sending signals through the atmosphere? Sending a letter instantly to ANYONE, ANYWHERE? Storing a library on a piece of metal the size of your thumbnail? They'd **** themselves. The 2nd amendment likewise cares not about advances in technology.
completely wrong. As I noted, you can also pretend that Keeping and bearing does not include owning, carrying, possessing and storing but anyone who objective understands your extremely narrow definitions are neither consistent with what the founders intended, but not consistent with normal usage
Well... no. But I'll take your endorsement where you say I'm right. Because what the poster I responded to is trying to say is that it implies it. Look... Looks like the two of you are in disagreement.
Wrong-we both reject your stilted interpretations. we both know that the second amendment is about what the government cannot do and that is to interfere with keeping and bearing arms. where I disagree with Reality is what level of arms meet the test of bearable
Yeah but one of you agreed with my MAIN point, which is that "keep and bear arms" does not IMPLY owning guns. Anybody can disagree with anything else. But THIS point is clear even to gun advocates. Maybe... debatable... but I'm not talking about keeping and bearing arms. I'm talking about owning guns.
the practical issue is this=a government that cannot infringe on keeping and bearing arms cannot prevent people from owning guns
Making wild claims because you WANT them to be true but no arguments indicates you have stopped trying. In any case, we are in agreement that the deliberations leading to the 2nd A did NOT mention owning guns. Therefore, that was not the reason the 2nd A was enacted. Which was the purpose of this thread (read the title). Any other interpretation you wish to make, you will have to open your own thread. My case has been proven.
who actually backs up your weaseling words Golem? I have yet to meet a single legal scholar or historian that pretends that keeping and bearing does not involve owning guns. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING. your arguments are circular nonsense
That's nice dear, that you think that. But that's not what I said. I said it didn't need to imply it, because its INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION. Which is what Turtle has held out as well. No conflict. Further: You haven't shown its not included, so any time you're ready to stop dodging do so.
BFD: tell us Golem-what do you think your anti gun side gains by your claiming that the second amendment does not protect OWNERSHIP but it does protect KEEPING AND BEARING?
The greatest treasure we can give: knowledge! The best weapon against ignorance, which is the most dangerous threat we face today. On the right, ignorance is now becoming willful. It is our hope that one day, by seeing how those who espouse ignorance are overwhelmed be it by evidence or be it by shame; they will once again embrace facts as the basis for their political positions.... no matter what those political positions might be. As I said before, maybe the right can come up with some great arguments... based on FACTS... for which gun ownership should be legal. But the 2nd A is NOT one of them, as facts have demonstrated. Scalia made a huge mistake by using it as his basis to legislate from the bench. Because the SECOND we have a non-activist Supreme Court again, it will be overturned at the first opportunity. And gun advocates will have to start all over again. Why not forget the 2nd A, which is easily show to not have ANYTHING to do with gun ownership, and instead use REAL arguments?
Oh I love the pretentiousness of this.. You have not demonstrated ANY FACTS. You make up stuff, push opinions and then pretend they are factual. Keep and bear includes OWNErSHIP
Yes, keeping and bearing would include arms lent to you by your brother, your mother or another. or arms that your employer issues you to protect his business. But tell us Golem-how can the government have the power to ban ownership but not keeping and bearing and this is the question YOU HAVE NEVER ANSWERED. what is the practical difference? Now I know you are wrong because you want to pretend that keeping and bearing has nothing to do with the inclusion of ownership and that flies in the face of everything relevant the founders stated. But what do you think you gain for the victim disarmament movement by your hair splitting efforts?
Or by the government... What are you talking about? Who said anything about banning ownership? The 2nd A doesn't address ANYTHING that has to do with ownership. Not guaranteeing it, not banning it... It simply doesn't address it.
