This of course assumed the military, sworn to the constitution not done leftist dream world will obey your command to strike at a constitutionally founded revolt against a government claim powers excluded to it by the constitution and let's not forget that the national guard is currently a large portion of our military strength and is highly unlikely to shoot at grandma and grandpa and their brothers and sisters on behalf of a government claiming to itself unconstitutional powers to act against those same relatives.
I have assumed nothing. I am only stating that it's not addressed in the 2nd A. Maybe they didn't feel the need. Maybe they wanted to leave it up to the states.... I don't know... What I do know (and have proven) is that it is not in the 2nd A.
Don't know what you think you have proven. Logic and the wording indicates an existing militia is not required.
At that particular time and place the militia was an emergency ad hoc unit called up in an emergency. It often had no real formal existence. One of the best kept secrets of the Revolutionary War was just how poorly militia units performed against regulars.
-> How many you want? Here's one: "While the data isn’t conclusive, it lends weight to the argument that the right of self-defense protected by the state constitutional provisions in category 1 should be understood as a right of collective self-defense, and therefore as a right associated with service in a militia." ... -> Why not? Thats precisely the sort of arbitrary distinction that demonstrates my point. Whats the difference between a group of soldiers defending a barracks from another group of soldiers, and a family ['the militia' according to US Code] defending their home from a group of criminals? The OP is not clear on why it believes one should be authorized by the state while the other not, it just works from that assumption without an explanation as to why. ... -> I did explain why. You edited it out. Here it is again: ... -> From your OP article: "But there is an additional factor I haven’t mentioned yet, and it strengthens the argument. That factor is corpus data—in particular, corpus data for the relevant state-constitutional language: the people’s right and the people have a right." That data is dominated by uses that I interpret as being collective. Those uses represented more than half of the combined uses of the two phrases—63 out of 104 concordance lines (not counting one that I couldn’t categorize)." ... You're going in circles again. The assumption that the phrase 'the militia' and 'bear arms' is not refering to individual defense as a military situation in our constituion is not only an interpretation, but it is the interpretation at the very heart of the argument you and the article are trying to support. ... I hope it has less holes in it than this one... ...ok, thats a lie. I love finding the holes in your arguments! Keep em coming!
but as you are fully aware, your interpretation has been shown to be incorrect. Your OP was disproven in the second post. You are perfectly aware that your interpretation has no basis in law, or the rules of grammar, which is why your argument has lost every single time it's been tried in court.
As I said, despite the motivations, the founders valued private gun ownership. I understand you want to undo that. Got it.
The purpose of the British troops was to seize caches of weapons and ammunition stored by the Sons of Liberty for the purpose of launching a revolution primarily over the colonial response to the Proclamation of 1763 and a series of British taxation acts, without giving the colonies representation in Parliament. Are you planning a revolution?
Not sure what you think you are agreeing with. An existing militia is not required for the right to own and bear arms.
Please explain your argument. Of course Corpus Linguistics is one of the major pieces of evidence that what was understood was a right of collective self defense. That's why I started with the thread "English 101", which produces more evidence, and will continue either with English 103" or "History 101", depending on how this thread evolves. Right now I'm leaning towards "History 101". It should put the nail in the coffin of those attempting to use the 2nd A to justify an individual "right" to own weapons. You can justify this "right" any other way you want. Just not with the 2nd A. So if your only argument is the 2nd A... I'd start to panic, if I were you. That the former is protected by the 2nd A, and the latter isn't. I have said absolutely nothing about whether anything should or should not be authorized. Re-read the OP and pay more attention. The rest of your post is either based on this false assumption or I have no idea what your point is.
Oh God! You didn't even read the OP, did you? It's in the final paragraph. Almost word by word!!! Focus! I have yet to understand why people would respond to a post that they haven't even read. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Correct. Because I don't agree with them either. Most of the time, I must say. Because lately looks like I've been agreeing with you quite a bit.
YES it was to confiscate the private arms of the citizens, arms they used to defend themselves against all sort of dangers especially when the government could not or would not. Same as today, we the citizens have a right to defend our selves, to keep and bear arms.
You are certainly free to start another thread on the topic, but as your interpretations have been thoroughly disproven, I don’t really understand why you’d want to?
Finally you notice that you are not understanding this debate.... You know what they say: realizing that you have a problem is the first step to solving it. Maybe in a couple of years....
Of course I understand the debate. You are trying to redefine what words mean, and how grammar works, in order to force your interpretation on everyone else. You’ve been shown that what you think the 2nd A means, is white demonstrably incorrect. It’s why your argument has lost every single time it’s been tried in court.
You have a responsibility to live under law. The caches of arms and ammunition the British troops were marching to confiscate were to be used to begin a rebellion largely because a segment of the population wanted to expand westward against the Proclamation of 1763 and did not want to pay taxes for British troops to defend them from the Indian tribes on the frontiers. The British had incurred debts regarding their European Wars which had led to, in this case, to the French and Indian War. The colonialists were taxed in sum less than the average British citizen in England.
So you confirm that you don't understand the debate. That's the second step. After understanding you have a problem, identifying what that problem IS. I'm sure you'll get there... eventualy.
You do understand that cutting off my quote doesn't change what I actually wrote right? My post is a matter of historical record. Here it is again. Of course I understand the debate. You are trying to redefine what words mean, and how grammar works, in order to force your interpretation on everyone else. You’ve been shown that what you think the 2nd A means, is white demonstrably incorrect. It’s why your argument has lost every single time it’s been tried in court.
