History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

No! So do linguists and historians say when referring to Scalia's fabricated pseudo-arguments. Their arguments, as well as links and quotes are in the OP of each thread.

Your inability to debunk those arguments shows in your continuous attempts to make the thread about ME and ZERO arguments about what the OPs say.

 

I don't have to debunk your contrived interpretation of the Constitution. I simply have to point out that your interpretation is functionally debunked by the Founders own words AND the Supreme Court of These United States. You're welcome to live in your fantasy world where OUR Constitution means whatever you believe it to mean; but that's NOT the world U.S. AmeriCANs live in. AmeriCANs live in the real world where the functional reality is "Individuals" have the right to own the "firearms in common use" without any ties or restrictions of membership or association with a militia involved. Your OP is a functional pipe dream.

 

No. You would actually need to do MUCH more than that. Like quoting what from what I said that they "debunked" and then showing where they debunked it.

But you have no intention of doing that, right? Like any follower of a religious dogma, you believe that just... saying... that something is not right, is enough. So why waste any more time?

Thanks for playing....

 

Have you ever figured out that no one supports your mythical interpretations of the second amendment. Not even those who dissented in Heller? SO you find a few linguists and you pretend they support your anti gun interpretation of the second amendment even though they are irrelevant when it comes to LAWS and there are plenty of linguists who dispute the gun banner perspective on the second.

 

"No one" except for the most prominent historians and linguists in this country.

BTW, it's not MY interpretation. It's theirs!

Oh... and yes. Even those who dissented on Heller. But this thread is not about Heller, so I couldn't care less.

 

No, "actually", I don't.

I did and you dismissed my counter quotes. What you have done is create a very self centered game of Calvin ball. Where everyone has to play by your rules, that you are free to change as you see fit.

Not anymore I don't, I am NOT playing, certainly not playing your version of Calvin ball.

That's all this is a silly game to you.

You're "game" has been called out. We AbsaByGodLutely will quote "Heller" in response to your contrived histrionics. "Heller" is THE current legally accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment, based on the writings of our Founders and THE Constitution.

Your OP may have been interesting from an academic point of view. (not really) But when the rubber meets the road, The Constitution and the "Heller" decision are what we live by.

In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period

Which makes your histrionics mute.

 

they don't have any relevance as to how the constitution is interpreted

do any of them say that the founders did not INTEND an individual right? of course not. the best you can do is to pretend that these linguists assert that the language of the second amendment does not specifically cite an individual right though "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty well destroys your argument.

 

He's a troll, so...

 

Non of which had anything to do with anything I have said. I SAID that the 2nd A, as written, does NOT confer, affirm, ... or in any way ADDRESS an individual "right" to own firearms.

If you have ANYTHING to counter this FACT, show it here and now. Not unrelated quotes, THIS fact, and this fact alone.

If not then, good luck. Not wasting any more time.

I'll tell you one thing, though. If you have ever been in a discussion about other topics in which the other person doesn't address your POINT.... that's you right now who is not addressing any of my points.

 

AND, OUR Founders disagree. The Constitution as currently interpreted by OUR Supreme Court disagree.

Heller v. DC

Because your points are dysfunctional In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals (without being associated with a militia) may own firearms in common use. <-period

 

No. Their relevance is only as how it was intended by those who WROTE it.

Of course YES!!!!! They DO say that the 2nd A was not intended by the founders to be taken as an individual right to own weapons. The link is in the OP.

For example:

'Proponents of the individual right interpretation see this last alteration as sloppy editing not meant to alter the amendment’s intended meaning. E.g., Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms, supra at 161. That view wholly ignores the character of the Senate that did the editing. Only two Anti-Federalists sat in the inaugural Senate session, and their twenty Federalist colleagues included men like Rufus King, a shaper of the original militia clause of the Constitution, and Hamilton’s father-in-law, General Philip Schuyler. These Federalists shared Washington’s and Hamilton’s view that the defense needs of the nation required a militia system not constitutionally yoked to the impracticable idea of keeping “the body of the people” trained to arms.'
​

And to be perfectly precise, this is what historians say

'It is not inherently bad history to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms; it is, however, bad history to declare that such a ruling was a return to the “original understanding” of the amendment. And it is especially bad history to claim that the protection of an individual right was the primary reason for the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights.'
​

You can find the links in the OP of the different threads.

 

That is correct. But it has nothing to do with the OP of this thread. So, since now it's obvious you have nothing to say about my points,... Thanks for playing...

 

And yet.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

... The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

3. ... the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional mustere ...

 

Heller v. DC has everything to do with your post:

"(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms."

That part of "Heller" specifically address your op.

 

anti gun activists understand that the second amendment is an obstacle to their wet dreams of a subservient and disarmed American public. So they have to try to remove that obstacle so as to advance their nefarious schemes

 

Yep! And one of them even passed the House. But it failed in the Senate. You could've saved some time because that was explained in the OP.

I'm sorry.... did you have a point you wanted to make?

 

I'm sorry. My mistake. They ALL failed in the House. That was where Noah Webster ridiculed the proposals saying that if they added that 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."

 

Very interesting ...


Every time you're proven wrong you have some new pathetic "golem ball" rule.

"Heller v. DC"

Individual Americans have the right to own and defend themselves with firearms in common use. <-period

That's the law we live by.

 

So you're telling me you DIDN'T have a point. For a second there I thought you might because it was the only accurate thing related to this thread you have said. Now I know better ...

 

No, I'm telling you ... YOU don't have a point.

Even when you truncate my posts you highlight my point. "That's the law we live by". AmeriCAN's have ALWAYS owned firearms, that right of ownership has ALWAYS been independent of militia membership and AmeriCANs have always had the right to own firearms that were in common use at the time. I get that you've manufactures some factoids that you think have bearing on something. But, nope, they don't. Historically and RightByGotNow These United States have NEVER operated under the paradigm you're trying to defend.

AmeriCAN individuals (independent of militia) have always had the right to own currently popular firearms and use them to lawfully defend themselves and for sport.

 

That you have. However, it's going to be very difficult for you to PROVE it if you don't even address my points, instead of going off on unrelated nonsense.

And I'm done trying to persuade you over and over to actually ADDRESS them. I am also done with reading your posts from start to finish expecting to maybe... possibly.... find a paragraph that addresses any them. So... good luck! You're on your own.

 

Have fun with your supreme Court case.

 

@Golem, You are factually incorrect.

The militia is not under control of congress, not directly or otherwise. If congress were in control of the militia it would have been mentioned in our constitution, like the power to ban drugs, or the power to fight poverty Robin Hood style.

 

They so desparately want to take our guns away from us.

 

The "well-regulated militia" is. And it IS mentioned. Article 1, Section 8. Clauses 15 and 16

Please keep in mind that NOTHING I say here is mine. It's taken from historians (and linguists, when relevant) as indicated in my sig. So it's not out of the question for you to argue that historians are wrong. They might be... But you damn well better have done your research before you make such a claim.