English 101 for anti 2nd amendment advocates and those who don’t think it’s absolute

No, Grabber, it is not. Your Robert's like desire to ignore the plain text over public policy considerations (that violate Bruen) undermines the individual right status of the 2a. You cannot both have your interpretation and individual right status the language simply doesn't work that way.
You're like golem concentrating on the prefatory clause ffs.

 

O shut the **** up

 

Ah so you agree with Bruen then. We discover what's not an infringement by the laws on the books in 1791 and allow analogs thereof that don't otherwise violate the constitution.

So pass the spear then.

 

Looks at what you did with 'the people'........ looks back.

 

Do you hear yourself right now? If you want to discuss how the law functions, or what the words mean, you certainly do need to know the legal definitions.

 

Groovy, we agree the people includes felons post sentence served then and there's no reason to make wild and spurious claims like they lose the ****ing right to assemble or associate.

 

If you say so, Scotsman.

 

I'll remind you what kicked off the revolution: An attempt to take the cannons and their ammunition owned by the citizenry at large.
I'll remind you that such arms were born upon ships of all sorts, and emplaced, and rolled behind wagons or drawn by team. I'll remind you there is an event called "the cannon CARRY" for a reason and its based on how you move and operate a cannon by hand.

Incorrect: the only restrictions on arms not constituting an infringement would those with analogs in the 1790s, see Bruen.
You admit there is not one, hence the analysis stops at the failure to find an analog. Without the analog, you'll need an amendment to the constitution.

Cannons were owned post BOR. The ownership of same was unrestricted, as you admit.
Therefore it is an infringement.

Cannons attacking an area is certainly a potential self defense use: Defense of homestead, defense of nation.
Or are you going to say settlers main defensive advantage wasn't cannon? If you do I'm going to lose all respect for your knowledge of history.
Are you going to say that if you pull a random libel from the day, that when a ship is described for the record that record doesn't includes its armaments?
Those ships that were owned and outfitted by private persons without letters of marque or a reprisal?

While we're on it: Why does Art 1 Sec 8 contemplate that citizens only need bare permission to shoot first on the high seas to be effective at reaving enemy ships of the line and merchantmen? A letter of marque or a reprisal does not grant one permission to arm, or to defend, it grants one permission to shoot first without it being piracy.

Still further: Explain how somehow the US used almost exclusively privateers for well over a century and only stopped when the Euros got so sore about getting their **** pushed in on the high seas by random hillbillies constantly that they banned privateering as piracy.

I am of course simply rapt with attention.

 

I love how you pretend not to see posts that show how foolish your position is.

 

Whatever you say, Scotsman.

 

Still here agreeing with the Grabbers are you? Pathetic.


Look its you, Steve the Totally Trustworthy not a Grabber

 

Whatever you say, Scotsman.

 

Sure thing Steve the totally not a grabber whose interpretation literally eliminates what makes it an individual right and is LITERALLY what people like Golem argue.

 

Whatever you say, Scotsman.

 

Sure thing Steve the totally not a grabber whose interpretation literally eliminates what makes it an individual right and is LITERALLY what people like Golem argue

 

Whatever you say, Scotsman.

 

Sure thing Steve the totally not a grabber whose interpretation literally eliminates what makes it an individual right and is LITERALLY what people like Golem argue

 

You clearly have some pathological need to get the last word in, Scotsman.
I'll let you.
Ready? Go!!

 

I have told you over and over and over, what one believes is subjective. Society determines what is protected or not.

I have a position, that if it doesn't matter to me in 50 yrs, then I shouldn't worry about it.

We all have a line in the sand. Yourself is certainly includedl
So what I personally believe is not set in STONE. But I do believe the 2A is not SET in STONE either.
Neither do you, since you always bring up the 10A as a legit infringement on the 2A.

But the discussion is, the 2A, according to the explicit words of the 2A, all bearable arms "Shall NOT be Infringed".
Any deviation from that are personal beliefs. USSC included.

 

Especially those that claim a 10th Amendment can over ride the 2A, in some interpretated instances.
"Shall Not Be Infringed", is pretty explicit. But you 2 both agree that it's not.
Because of some other interpretation that happens later.

NOTE: Arms is NOT restricted to Guns.

 

Who determines the intent. The founders, writers, are all dead.
So intent is up to the individual. But on a national scale, up to the gov't. And the guide to that body is the USSC.

And we can see, even that is subject to change. See Roe V Wade.

 

What?

 

Was that another way of saying words and definitions change over time?

 

If that were true, you'd be the only poster in this thread.

 

At least my interpretation is based on what is in the actual text of the amendment. The Second Amendment does explicitly recognize that the purpose of the right is an effective miitia.

In contrast, TOG 6 redefines "bear arms" as "use arms", but thinks the use of arms is only protected for certain purposes (even purposes that are not in the text of the amendment).

Apparenly, Turtledude doesn't think that New York should be able to regulate concealed carry but can't explain why it's okay for the Tenth Amendment to be violated. I am reminded of the words of Standord history professor Jack Rakove:

"Finally, the complete omission from the individual right interpretation of any discussion of the police power of the states constitutes potentially its most telling flaw.... it is impossible to conceive how the Tenth Amendment could have excluded the traditional power of government to legislate broadly for public health and safety from the reserved powers of the states."