The Left Have Shot Themselves In The Foot

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by independentthinker, Nov 19, 2021.

  1. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, 'keep' could easily mean 'own'.

    "bear arms' means to take up arms in a fight, usually in a military context.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2021
  2. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you, I appreciate this.
     
  3. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    21,268
    Likes Received:
    14,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incorrect and far from unreasonable. Translating the second amendment as well as the many other references on the subject does not leave room to infer it would be restricted to taking up arms in a fight. Forming a militia of people that have never touched a firearm is not a reasonable strategy. Might as well issue them Derringers and the book "Shooting for Dummies!"
     
    Kat236 likes this.
  4. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,709
    Likes Received:
    3,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you know that to be true in every circumstances??
     
  5. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    21,268
    Likes Received:
    14,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant. If victims are unarmed, the rapist/killer has an advantage in EVERY circumstance.

    Would you disarm armored car security guards?
     
    Kat236 and roorooroo like this.
  6. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,709
    Likes Received:
    3,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you feel it is irrelevant?
     
  7. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,107
    Likes Received:
    68,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The historical context of 'bear arms' is that the phrase is predominantly used in a military context:

    https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf

    The digitization of historical documents provides historians with the capability to determine the meaning of the right to bear arms. Nathan Kozuskanich searched “bear arms” in “120 American newspapers from 1690 to 1800” along with numerous newspapers, pamphlets, and broadsides in the Library of Congress online database. He found that nearly all of the articles “use the phrase ‘bear arms’ within an explicitly collective or military context to indicate military action.” Kozuskanich concludes that Americans in the eighteenth century “overwhelmingly used ‘bear arms’ in a military sense both in times of war and in times of peace.”

    And, this is confirmed by @Golem:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

    Using two databases, COFEA (Corpus of Founding Era American English) and COEME (Corpus of Early Modern English) https://lawcorpus.byu.edu/, which compile basically all the documents written around the time the Bill of Rights was written, linguists searched for all occurrences of the words "bear" within 4 words, left or right, or "arms" to find out what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" would mean to any moderately educated American of the period.

    Eliminating sentences that obviously had nothing to do with the matter (such as "the bear tore away his arms" or "she couldn't bear looking at his arms" ... and similar) they found that only 2% related to anything other than military. And even those required a qualifier to indicate that it was not military. For example, in some state constitutions where the phrase that appears is something like "...bear arms for the defence of the state and for personal defence". With no qualifiers, the phrase always referred to a military setting. Though they mention a sign outside the church that mockingly said "Please do not bear arms inside the house of the Lord"
     
  9. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    21,268
    Likes Received:
    14,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Many more are mislead and misinformed. Those working to erode Second Amendment rights rely on ignorance and emotion to recruit followers. Those that don't know a clip from a magazine are quick to rebleat their propaganda.

    I call it a position of convenience. From your armchair in your safe neighborhood, others should give up their rights you don't agree with. Of course, the position is not one from concern for human life. Its not like you have to see gruesome crime scenes on a regular basis. Those that do are overwhelmingly in favor of armed citizens.

    Another convenience is not going after gang members, criminals, and dangerous people. That would be dangerous, so you go after those that aren't a threat. Honest, law abiding citizens are the only ones affected by your random, thoughtless, gun laws that only provide killers with easy victims.

    When faced with real life questions about real people, you waved your smug, convenient, magical wand and granted women a Derringer. They should be grateful for such a privilege.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2021
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Historians do not need to be gun experts, and that you are confused on that point is telling.

    You haven't refuted the fact that the term 'bear arms' historically speaking, is used in a military context.

    Nothing else is relevant to that point, you are just ranting.

    What's next? Desk pounding?
     
  11. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    8,090
    Likes Received:
    7,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ Americans will keep their firearms . That is their right - not a privilege.

    behind-this-thing.jpg
     
    US Conservative, Kat236 and mswan like this.
  12. mswan

    mswan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2021
    Messages:
    4,040
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    What Did “Bear Arms” Mean in the Second Amendment?
    https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/03/04/what-did-bear-arms-mean-in-the-second-amendment/

    “Sampling the definitions of several dictionaries following the Constitution’s ratification and the Second Amendment’s addition, Cramer and Olson show that none of them have the term “bear arms” as specific to the military

    Let’s also take the word of James Wilson, who was a member of the Constitutional Convention and one of the authors of the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution (not to mention a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Court associate justice). The Pennsylvania Constitution itself makes it very clear that the term “bear arms” refers to an individual right, declaring “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” (emphasis added).

    Wilson himself explained that this term found in the state constitution “is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulation,” as the Saxons were bound to keep arms in defense of themselves individually and their local kingdom.

    “When the a law professor who was one of the authors of a state constitution tells you what a clause means—and explicates that ‘bear arms’ included defense ‘of their own persons’—it is best to assume that he knows what he is talking about,” Cramer and Olson note wryly. “In light of Justice Wilson’s exposition of what this right means, it is no surprise to see that there are many antebellum decisions that recognized that the right to bear arms was individual in nature (although often subject to regulation), and not specific to military duty.”
     
    Kat236 and roorooroo like this.
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Sorry, my research was based on actual usage, not dictionary.

    The historical context of 'bear arms' is that the phrase is predominantly used in a military context:

    https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/9064/Campbell_okstate_0664M_12057.pdf

    The digitization of historical documents provides historians with the capability to determine the meaning of the right to bear arms. Nathan Kozuskanich searched “bear arms” in “120 American newspapers from 1690 to 1800” along with numerous newspapers, pamphlets, and broadsides in the Library of Congress online database. He found that nearly all of the articles “use the phrase ‘bear arms’ within an explicitly collective or military context to indicate military action.” Kozuskanich concludes that Americans in the eighteenth century “overwhelmingly used ‘bear arms’ in a military sense both in times of war and in times of peace.”

    And, this is confirmed by @Golem:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

    Using two databases, COFEA (Corpus of Founding Era American English) and COEME (Corpus of Early Modern English) https://lawcorpus.byu.edu/, which compile basically all the documents written around the time the Bill of Rights was written, linguists searched for all occurrences of the words "bear" within 4 words, left or right, or "arms" to find out what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" would mean to any moderately educated American of the period.

    Eliminating sentences that obviously had nothing to do with the matter (such as "the bear tore away his arms" or "she couldn't bear looking at his arms" ... and similar) they found that only 2% related to anything other than military. And even those required a qualifier to indicate that it was not military. For example, in some state constitutions where the phrase that appears is something like "...bear arms for the defence of the state and for personal defence". With no qualifiers, the phrase always referred to a military setting. Though they mention a sign outside the church that mockingly said "Please do not bear arms inside the house of the Lord"
     
  14. mswan

    mswan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2021
    Messages:
    4,040
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Late you come, yet still you come. Another loss for you. Next time you should actually read the article, you might not look so foolish.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2021
    Kat236, roorooroo and Libhater like this.
  15. Kat236

    Kat236 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2019
    Messages:
    431
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Links, evidence?? You would never say that to any responsible gun owner in person.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  16. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,107
    Likes Received:
    68,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hes trying to make the cartoon script in his head translate to reality.
     
    Kat236 likes this.
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

    You cannot refute the data.

    Too bad it makes you look foolish.
     
  18. James California

    James California Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2019
    Messages:
    8,090
    Likes Received:
    7,905
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ~ It is. Obviously some want to change this.

    " A well regulated militia " in most interpretation is " we the people " . In other words a way for the common citizens to protect against a tyrannical government. This right shall not be infringed.
    Here is an article where this issue is debated :

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2021
    US Conservative likes this.
  19. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is all a misunderstanding. They meant you are allowed to eat bear meat. They should have said leg instead of arm.
     
  20. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    3,637
    Likes Received:
    1,922
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A question for the conservative pro gun folks who say that everyone being armed makes life safer: Do you really want the woke SJW lefties who think all white people are racist and dangerous... To have guns?
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2021
  21. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,107
    Likes Received:
    68,185
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As with any other right, I want them to be able to exercise theirs.
     
  22. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    5,927
    Likes Received:
    4,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    are you coming on to me?




    Haha just teasing. I think women that carry are sexy as hell. Good goin, keep it up.
     
    Kat236 and US Conservative like this.
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    14,616
    Likes Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, I thought they were making a fashion statement, shoot 'em up with sleeveless shirts.
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  24. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    37,493
    Likes Received:
    14,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's the right to arm bears
     
    Jolly Penguin likes this.
  25. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    37,493
    Likes Received:
    14,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look, I don't care but this is just bloody silly. Do you really think the Founding Fathers went to all this trouble to write up this subtle and sublime but still wondrous complicated Constitution and then put in this sort of Enabling Clause called the 2nd Amendment which says we can just murder our government employees willy nilly whenever the mailman is late? Cheez and crackers guys, just why do you think they put in elections every time you turn around anyway?

    The 2nd Amendment is like the laws in Medieval England which said that every subject of the King had to practice with the Longbow enough to hit a butt from ### paces or pay a fine. These laws paid off at Crecy and Agincourt enough that England became a Continental power, and the 2nd Amendment paid off for us at Gettysburg, Vera Cruz, the Somme and Normandy, but it is NOT meant to pay off at the Capitol or Wall Street. There is a difference between legitimate rebellion and flat out murder.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2021
    Jolly Penguin likes this.

Share This Page