The 2nd amendment confers no legislative power at all. It limits legislative power. Only article I, section 8 confers legislative power, and it confers no power to outlaw the possession of firearms.
The only other option is to resort to the immature, intellectually deficient option of utilizing the ignore feature. Ignoring a problem does not make the problem go away.
I'm not biting your trolling. Stick to the facts. This is a gun control forum...no one wants to hear your personal opinions about me
Getting a little emotional, aren't you? I can feel your desperation from here. Sorry; not playing your game anymore.
No idea what any of this has to do with anything I wrote. Are you asking me the difference between military service and militia? As far as I know, a militia is (or was) a type of military service. Just not the professional type.. And this is why it was important for the security of a fee state. It lifts some of the expense from the government. On the other hand, I could also be wrong. I'm sure there are military experts here who can give you a better explanation of what the difference is.. But again: so? Do you have a point?
There used to be a commonly held view that women could not participate in the political arena. Today, we know this has always been a huge mistake. What passed for right now is not correct.
A point is indeed had on the part of myself. Clarification on the part of yourself was merely necessary in order to demonstrate what the point was. According to the linguists being cited by yourself, the second amendment protects a right of the people to serve in the military, or a right to be conscripted into military service; basically they are describing it as being a constitutional right to be a slave. More specifically, a slave that is forced to seek and acquire specific training at their own expense rather than at the expense of government, to serve in a military fashion at the behest of the government, be it local or federal. Militia service would involve quite literally anything as government would be setting the terms of the service, even if the terms of service would ultimately involve killing those government stated needed to be killed for whatever reason, regardless of circumstances or personal connection to those who would be ordered to perform the killings because government ordered it. That is essentially what these linguists are stating regarding the second amendment; that is a right to be a slave, and a right to be ordered to kill at government so chooses.
The linguists aren't making a historical interpretation. They are making a linguistic interpretation. For which they used historical facts relevant to the linguistic determination. As in any Science, any objective demonstrable observation that contradicts either the methodology used or the conclusion itself, and that was not accounted for, would invalidate the conclusion. Careful though.. Make sure you understand what the conclusion was. I have been accused of being too repetitive. So I won't repeat it here. But if you don't keep what that conclusion is, I'm afraid you may waste a lot of your time.
This is getting a bit too repetetive. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...cond-amendment.539563/page-50#post-1069856037
And yet such is indeed the case according to the interpretation on the part of these linguists being cited on the part of yourself.
Yep! Them sneaky linguists just want to reintroduce slavery into the United States. Thank God we have you to unmask them. They are truly "cunning-linguists"
