The limitation of federal government in the second amendment is in the most misinterpreted passage of The Constitution, IMO, the last 13 words: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (by the federal government).'
Aside from the fact that the last 13 words in the second amendment is the limitation on federal government, I doubt that a neocon such as yourself even realizes your negative (and non-conservative) qualities.
First, SCOTUS used the 13th amendment to protect former slaves who were being prosecuted for using arms to defend themselves (when the former slave holding state had no such provisions for arms usage for former slaves) and second, SCOTUS extended the original meaning of the second to misrepresent the second into some sort of 'universal arms for all Americans' amendment.
IMO, The Constitution doesn't grant the 'right to universal arms for all Americans', either...IMO, it's the misinterpretations of SCOTUS which makes the second into a 'universal arms right for all Americans'. In other words, a session of SCOTUS deemed Roe V. Wade invalid because of an invalid interpretation by SCOTUS of how The Constitution related to Roe V. Wade so why can't another session of SCOTUS deem the 'universal arms rights for all Americans' SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment invalid especially when, IMO, SCOTUS was wrong?
The passers of the second amendment published and spoke volumes on the arms rights topic. It's a fallacy to take just the wording of the second amendment and use normal linguistic patterns to determing the meaning of the second amendment. Instead, read their writings and speeches. Figure it out, just once
No one claims it does - indeed, the court itself said there is no grant of any right to any one in the 2nd. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542 Heller does not change this. You do not understand the reasoning of the court in Roe or Dobbs. Hint: because the constitution specifically contains a right to keep and bear arms, the situations aren't comparable.
Nothing here supports your position . Disagree? Cite it. Copy and paste the text that supports your position. Oh wait. You won't. Because it does not exist. Prove otherwise.
But they did it in English. And you just made it clear that, to you, language is not relevant. So, under your premise, "keep and bear arms" could mean "growing coconuts in Alaska. Nihilism shuts the door to any possible intelligent dialogue. So I guess that's that.
I have addressed "YOUR" quotes, but you dismissed quotes from the Founders that support THEIR belief that the right of the individual to own firearms IS fundamental to freedom. You keep harping on the "QUOTES" of the OP, but they have been proven false and manipulated at least a 1000 times in this tread. The tread is based on fallacy or your creation. But the functional point here is your argument is impotent. IN These United States we live by the law of the land the Constitution and the rulings on the meaning of that Constitution by the Supreme Court. You can blather about the English language all you like but it you that refuses to accept the meaning, in English, of the Constitution AS WE ARE LIVING IT.
I'm not even talking about their "belief". I'm talking about what was APPROVED and became the 2nd A as written. Plus (on the History threads) of the discussions that led up to that. The notion that all the Founders believed the same things is an example of binary thinking. But what came out as an Amendment was what Congress and what the states approved. Regardless of what each individual believed. Not only have they NOT been proven wrong. They haven't even been addressed. Debunking (or even addressing) a study in which ALL documents of the era were analyzed is very easy. The link to the tools, the databases, ... everything... are all in the link in the OP. All anybody would need to do is show quotes from those documents in which "...keep and bear arms ", with no qualifiers, is used to indicate anything different from a military scenario. And if you don't trust the databases, then come up with a book, article, letter... anything written at the time. It could not be easier. However, all you and your side has done is 1- Attempt to change the subject 2- Say again and again that it was debunked without having even addressed the point or the arguments, and 3- A myriad of outrageous excuses that are not even worth mentioning, like saying that English is irrelevant in this discussion, or equally idiotic....
We've read your quotes and have proven them wrong. But the functonal truth is no matter how much you'd like to live a differ rent reality, REALITY IS individuals have the right to own firearms in common use without any tie to a militia.
NO, you're talking about a fantasy that you would like to be true but just isn't. I know that because the law we are living says, the law that is functioning, the law of OUR land says individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period
In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period In These United States, in the year of our Lord 2023; individuals, without being associated with a militia, may own firearms in common use. <-period
you are even less educated as the term neocon than you are constitutional law. Neocons-originally, were mainly pro-Israeli, often Jewish intellectuals who worried that the Democrat Party had become isolationist after its failure in Vietnam and that the Democrats were no longer willing to support Israel. So while these intellectuals maintained their leftwing domestic views such as being anti gun and pro welfare spending, they broke with the DNC and urged US support of Israel. That was the start of the neocon movement. I have never been a supporter of most Democrat domestic policies so I cannot be a neo con. I have been a libertarian conservative since I was old enough to read.
still waiting for you to tell me what is the proper interpretation of the second amendment then you can explain why incorporation would change that meaning
You have a right to your opinions. Once again - The Constitution makes no mention of abortion, whereas it specifically says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Oh, on the abortion thing - the Constitution gives the right to every state to control abortion as it sees fit
This is a 40 year old destruction of the now defunct collective rights nonsense https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=mlr (This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository.) Advocates of the individual right position, on the other hand, rely on the fact that the natural reading of the amendment's phrase "right of the people" is that it creates not a state right, but one which individuals can assert. This is how the identically phrased34 first and fourth amendments are interpreted.35 Furthermore, the individual right advocate may accept the state's right theory and simply assert that, even though one of the amendment's purposes may have been to protect the states' militias,36 another was to protect the individual right to arms. Indeed, the evidence suggests it was precisely by pro- tecting the individual that the Framers intended to protect the mili- tia.37 In thus yielding to the primary strength of the opposing argument, individual right advocates define the burden that the ex- clusively state's right theorist must bear. To demonstrate that no in- dividual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals - despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology. As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear. Such debate as the amendment received is sparse and incon- clusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposi- tion that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes.38
I made it clear that normal ways of communicating English in 1781 wasn't relevant. The words and speech of the passers of the second is what is relevant. Don't do as you do and dissect the meaning of the second amendment via normal 1781 American English speech and meanings. Dissect the meaning of the second from the writings and speech of the passers of the second.
Neocon is a derogatory and derisive term given to members of the establishment GOP who're neither for free speech nor democracy but scream about the virtues of both. The neocon (like Brian Kilmeade, for example) adores the founders but is the opposite of the founders.
The proper interpretation of the second amendment is the federal gov't is establishing regulations for state militias since state militias guard the federal gov't and the rights of the people concerning arms usage conveyed by state constitutions cannot be infringed by the federal gov't.
so you are stuck on the failed argument that the second amendment was a vehicle to give the federal government more power. Can you find a single court decision or law review article that supports this silliness?
