what exactly is your ploy to claim ownership is not protected by the second amendment? if the government issues you firearms and then can take them away, then your right to KEEP those arms does not exist. And yes it does address what the government CANNOT DO rather than what WE CAN DO and preventing ownership is something the government is PROHIBITED FROM DOING
It's one of his favorite ploys "keep" doesn't mean "keep" for some reason. It's like the government ISSUES a weapon while you're in the "militia" and give it back when discharged.
He never can explain how the victim disarmament movement is helped by pretending a government that cannot infringe on KEEPING AND BEARING arms actually is not prevented from BANNING OWNERSHIP. For those of us who actually have attended law school and passed bar exams, one of the major rules of construction is to construe laws in a way that they fit with the rest of the statutory framework they are part of. The anti gun movement's silly attempts to claim "the people" in the second actually means the "several states" is ludicrous
Does really matter to the anti-gun types. Logic, law, and the REAL version of "common sense" doesn't occupy a single synapse In their brain.
To promote MAGAs three most feared enemies: education, facts and reality. Diabolical, ain't it? You are desperate. Who said anything about THOSE arms? It's just an example of how the people can exercise their "right to keep and bear arms" without owning them. "Owning" is irrelevant in the 2nd A. So much so that it's even irrelevant in YOUR interpretation of the 2nd A. So you better go back to your tactic of ignoring what the purpose of the Amendment was in the first place. That's right. The government CANNOT neglect the militias. Because, if they do, how could the people keep and bear arms? This was EXTENSIVELY and EXPLICITLY discussed in the debates leading to the final draft of the 2nd A. See the document that you already read (I hope) that was referenced by @Patricio Da Silva. You know what was NOT extensively and explicitly discussed? Owning guns! It wasn't even MENTIONED. So the question that you refuse to answer is: how is it possible that the framers drafted an amendment intended to protect gun ownership (like Scalia's legislation pretends) and NEVER even MENTION gun ownership during their long debates about the amendment? No need to answer the question if you realize that the answer is that it would not be RATIONAL. I'm not expecting you to publicly acknowledge this. So a non-answer is enough.
well you completely fail to provide any of the above-what you do provide is proof of what I have said for going on fifty years-gun control is a weapon the middle of the road to extreme left uses against people perceived to be Republicans and conservatives. Your comment about MAGAS proves my point You completely have this ass backwards. You cannot have a militia that works if private citizens cannot own, use, possess, practice with and have instant access to firearms. You constantly want to talk about "debates" while ignoring tons of comments made by the founders and also ignoring the entire context of the then recent revolution that started when the British tried to disarm the colonists. EVERYTHING connected to the constitution proves that the founders wanted a government that COULD NOT disarm the citizens-and you know that
Well.... this thread is NOT about gun control. But I do appreciate you acknowledge that this is a moderate position opposed by the extreme right. MAGAs are not conservatives. Conservatives are moderates. MAGAs are what you describe above. Not left, not moderates, but extreme right. Anyway... off-topic. Maybe the framers should have added an amendment to protect ownership. Alas! They didn't! It's as if it never crossed their minds that this would ever become an issue. Having said that, clearly it was not a problem at the time when militias were relevant, though. So maybe they knew what they were doing.
Your comments about MAGA are irrelevant, wrong and worthless. Gun banners are not only extremists, they are haters of our constitutional rights and our freedoms. The framers never gave the new government ANY powers to restrain or restrict what the people could own, keep bear, use, buy sell, repair, trade etc, and keeping and bearing includes ownership
the second amendment completely bans the federal government any valid gun control power concerning bearable arms.
You acknowledge by this post that it does in fact include owning firearms. Full stop. It ALSO includes other forms of keeping, but it DOES include ownership. Meaning ownership cannot be infringed with.
If it includes both owning and not owning, then it includes owning and you cannot infringe on owning. QED.
It makes no difference if they're owned or not as far as the idiom "keep and bear arms". The fact that ownership is IRRELEVANT in the 2nd A is proven by the fact that they didn't even MENTION ownership in the debates in Congress leading to its approval. How many bills have you seen passed to protect X in which there is NO discussion whatsoever about X? Using the 2nd A to justify gun ownership is a losing case from ANY point of view.
Ownership is not irrelevant, its included in to keep. Other forms are ALSO included, like a lending. That means BOTH of those things are alright. Full stop. Again: There IS discussion of X, in that X is included in category A and category A is listed. Please stop.
It's hilarious-well all they said was keeping and bearing. that means carrying, owning , handling, touching, looking at, cleaning, polishing, storing, etc is NOT PROTECTED.
Well, one example that comes to mind is that Congress provides them. Article 1, Section 8, Article 15 and 16 might address that contingency. The 2nd A does NOT. Not the well regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd A. These threads are ONLY about the 2nd A.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed is pretty clear. As ruled on and supported by the SCOTUS
it's clear to most people who don't start with a desire to ban guns and know they have to reinterpret the second so it won't block their goals
yeah and the right of the people shall not be infringed means the people-which is a much larger group than those actually serving in a militia.
Its an inherent dishonesty that has taken over the Democrat party. They have no foresight on anything and will step to any beat the party gives them, without even knowing why. Then they get so deep in these left wing idiotic ideas, they have no way back. Reinterpreting the Constitution and redefining words is the new norm for the Democrat party
FDR was a major offender-his reinterpretation of the commerce clause was the greatest power grab in US History and is responsible for most of the problems we face from a bloated federal government
In the days of the 2nd A congress provided rifles and guns to some of the federal army on a temporary basis and to most of the navy, but none to individuals and none to states (who could not have an army) or to state militias. In the days of the 2nd A a well regulated militia was virtually non-existent (as often lamented by many including George Washington) and was predominately an ideal dream and desire.
The militia clauses I cited make it very clear that they are referring to the militias. But non of this makes any difference in respect to the 2nd A. I was simply answering your question.
