I cut the rest because it's irrelevant. Not what this discussion is about. Thus proving my point. Read the OP! If, after reading it, you do understood what this is about, you would respond by referencing the specific statement you are countering directly from there. Not with your usual empty "no it isn't"... "you're wrong" and similar nonsense ... but with real counter-arguments which are, at a minimum, similar in absence of substance. I would bet that you won't. If you do, be aware that I don't respond (or quote) parts of posts that have no substance. And I simply don't bother if the entire post has no substance relevant to the topic on the OP (unless I can think of something funny to say). Understand that, regardless of how much you are trying to convince yourself to the contrary, I did do my due diligence. But I'm referring to my POINT. Not to some comment made casually that is unrelated or makes no difference, and is made only for stylistic purposes. As my sig says, due diligence doesn't mean I'm always right. But if I'm not, you're going to have to counter it with real arguments. Just saying "you're wrong" or similar with no real arguments, will just be edited out. So don't waste your time. I'm not a linguist, a historian or an attorney... but everything I say comes from what actual experts in those fields have written. Very few of this is mine. I include it only because it sounds reasonable to me. And, in most instances, because I have said it in other threads and nobody has offered a rebuttal that goes any further than "you don't know what you're talking about" or "that's false".... but nothing to substantiate those claims.
uh, the rest of it directly refutes your premise of this and the other thread, as well as the thread you intend to start. Everyone, including you, knows why you can't address posts which refuted your position. Again, you are attempting to redefine words. You've been shown your interpretation is completely incorrect, by the words of the actual men who drafted the amendment. Your interpretation has also been shown to be completely incorrect by every single court it has been in front of. That is reality. You can detach yourself from it all you like, but refuted you will remain.
Since I'm growing bored with this, I'll post the entire deconstruction of this ridiculous premise all at once, rather than walking Golem through it step by step. When I left off, Golem was consistently saying that it's possible to qualify bear arms to mean something other than "use for a military purpose" or "use in a military scenario." I even got him to say that the phrase bare arms was qualified, despite his previous claims to the contrary. Clearly moving him away from his premise. vs So now I need to address that qualification and its premise in this part of Golem's claim: I started to address the meaning of the words "free state." I didn't get much response out of Golem on this subject. Freedom is an individual right of a citizen of the state, not a right of the state. The constitution itself serves as a restraint on the freedom of the state. Free cannot possibly qualify the state. It must qualify the people that live under the rule of the state. In this context, the militia is necessary to defend individual liberty. If we look to the first amendment we can see that an amendment need not be focused on a single right. It can detail many rights. In the second amendment we get two rights. The right of the people to form a militia is one of them. The purpose of this militia is to defend individual freedom within the state. Next is the commonly understood meaning of the word militia. I posted earlier about the origins of the concept of a militia. I also showed the militia in practice in colonial America. When news of trouble in Boston was received, civilians came together for common cause of defense of individual liberty using their own weapons and supplies.. When the threat to liberty dissolved, so too the militia dissolved, and civilians went back home with their own arms. The officers of the militia were told what to do by the civilians. In effect, the officers were regulated by the people, not the other way around. This was considered a superior model to a standing army. A standing army would not dissolve in times of peace. Leaders of a standing army act solely under the authority of the government. There was great concern that the leadership of a standing army could easily be corrupted to act against the freedom of the individuals within the state. Leaders of a militia act under the direction of the people. The colonial model was obviously very similar to the fyrd with one key exception. The fyrd was directed by the lord. The fyrd could not decide to form or dissolve on its own. We can also see this distinction in Federalist No. 46: This gives us the second right in the second amendment. In order to exercise the right to form a militia, the people require the right to posses and use weapons. The militia, like the bucket brigade, was only active in times of need. You don't need to actively participate in the bucket brigade to have a right to own a bucket. But you need a right to own a bucket in order to form a bucket brigade. Same with arms. The right to own arms is a right that is separate from the right to form a militia. You don't need to form a militia in order to keep and bear an arm. The entire point of the militia was that it could dissolve in times of peace. But you need to keep and bear an arm if you want to form a militia in times of trouble.
They were protecting them for their own self defense and reliance as firearms have been used throughout out history.
Dont you think the bigger picture here is at stake? Taken into context the bill of rights clearly sought to limit the reach of government into individual lives. Surely you wouldn’t give the freedom of the press the same scrutiny. The entirety of the constitution is written to protect individuals from government. Why would the founders go on and on about individuals’ rights and then in the second amendment go about limiting them? To single out the second amendment like it has a different premise from the rest of the laws makes no sense.
Yes... the purpose of guns are to kill for food and/or to murder for sport or defense of self and/or society. The arms cache at Concord was to overthrow the State in the name of revolution.
They were the arms which they used to protect themselves, their families, their homes and their towns.
And the British were going to confiscate those firearms so they could not do so. The Founding Fathers said no government should ever be allowed to disarm the citizenry.
The two primary reasons for the revolution was to preserve the ability to expand western beyond the original colonial borders and to avoid having to pay taxes.
Perhaps, in some cases. But, most of that was propaganda spewed by radicals, such as the Sons of liberty. According to John Adams, the revolutionists were in the minority at the beginning, with the majority being either loyalists or not caring.
The gov has F 22 fighters, canons, howitzers, RPGs, tanks, bombs, bazookas, 50 cal. machine guns, yeah, like a private militia is going to fight the military. "Given enough time". Hey, 250 years nothing even close to that has occurred. It's a moot issue in the modern era. This is a ridiculous argument. in the late 18th century it made sense, but not today.
A rag tag military force with no navy, Air Force or armored tank division has held Afghanistan against all the US military has thrown at it and still controls that country.
Rag tag, eh? Americans are not Afganis weaned on goatsmilk and bread living in caves in the rugged mountains of Afganistan, where they have a tactical advantage, ( just as the Russians did in the snowy winters on their turf fighting the Nazis ) motivated by an extremist death cult called the Taliban successfully turned back the Russian Army a few years prior False comparison.
Yes Not false at all. Many gun owners are former US military. They are better trained and more capable than the adganis lol
The Federalist Papers as well as the other Founders direct quotes were incredibly clear. They wanted U.S. Citizens armed to protect themselves from threats both foreign and domestic. If the U.S. Government was the only body that maintained arms, that is 100% against the intent.
Good luck fighting our US military when the US decides to become dictatorship. Good grief your position is looney tunes.
Yeah...too bad they didn't use the word "regulated." According to the Supreme Court, you have a right a right to own a gun and the State has the right to regulate that right. Not to mention "the people's right" to amend the Constitution.
You don't think background checks, wait periods, non-automatic, the ongoing extensive regulations on the manufacturers, etc... is not regulated? ROFL! Their intent to arm the citizenry was 100% clear, but somehow you Leftists refuse to acknowledge it.
I don't think they anticipated the destructive power of modern weapons. And, yes, there are gun control measures in effect. They need to be federalized. They obviously failed to work effectively in Boulder. The founders probably also failed to anticipate modern aviation. Does that mean the FAA is unconstitutional?
