I love how you arrogantly pretend others aren't taking this seriously as you spew comments that are either ignored or laughed at by actual legal scholars. Plus you have never dealt with this point-a point from a real legal scholar who has been cited by the USSC numerous times
The OP demonstrates that an individual right to own firearms was NOT in the the discussions or the mind of the framers when they enacted the 2nd A. You haven't even addressed those arguments. Much less "destroyed" them. All you have done is try to change the subject. And you call yourself an "expert" on the Constitution? I'll take a dozen of those for a dime, but I demand a discount!
YES! It's a right to keep and bear arms. NOT a "right" to own firearms. If you don't know what "keep and bear arms" meant at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted., I already sent you the link. Here it is again, in case you missed it. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ You can discuss it there, if you have something to say. Or I can more the discussion there for you. And, BTW, the supposed "right" to own firearms would be ONE right. NOT "rights" It's clear you have a hard time focusing when you read, but please try harder.
so tell us how this matters (I deny your claims btw as do almost every one who actually has an educational background in constitutional law).
Great. So finally you admit that the 2nd recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Thank you.
LOL, you've done enough of that for both of us. Only thing your "bases are covered with is dust. As usual, you decide on a conclusion and then spin the semantics to create an argument that will reason in the pre-ordained reason. Oh, and then patted yourself on the back for your brilliance. what your references don't consider is that pre-revolutionary and revolutionary days guns were common in many house houses. They also overlook that British occupiers often confiscated guns; therefore the "KEEP, and bear arms" was intended to both "provide for the common defense" and TOO GUARANTEE the populace their right to OWN guns for hunting and personal defense. Your previous post regarding scholars examination of writings of the time neglects to consider the written words was not widely distributed beyond a few cities; ironically the ones who had local law enforcement nearby.
nothing he cites is stuff that I have ever seen mentioned in the leading law review articles etc. The most glaring fail is trying to pretend that "keeping and bearing" is somehow protected-while "owning" is not and why it matters.
Looks like what you're not understanding is what the idiom "keep and bear arms" meant at the time the 2nd A was enacted. That's explained here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Which you would have known if you read the OP.... But yes. The right to fight to defend the country as part of a militia sounds to me like an individual right. Not sure. That's just an opinion. Not relevant to the topic of this thread at all.
the second-like other parts of the bill of rights-is a negative restriction upon a government devoid of any delegated powers to act in certain areas/ the second was also a recognition of a natural right that pre-existed the constitution
he claims that keeping and bearing were intended to deny Owning when the obvious reading is that owning, using, carrying possessing are included.
I do not debate with anybody who is not here. I would have no problem taking on Scalia himself (who was a great legal scholar, but obviously SUCKED in history and linguistics). But he HAS to be here. Forum rules state that if you have a point to make YOU make it. Use references if you want, but YOU have to make it. Like the points I make are taken from historians an linguists but I'M the one making those points here. Throwing in names is not the same as making a point. And remember: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein "If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can." -Karl Popper
I could not care less. All I know is that, negative, positive, delegated, not delegated, natural or artificial, with or without sugar... it does NOT address some "right" to own firearms. Linguistic analysis of the text as written, demonstrates this, and historical analysis confirms it. And you attempting to change the subject every time I explain this is definite evidence that you have NO arguments to rebut those analysis.
Scalia graduated first in his class, history was his major. You constantly cite obscure and irrelevant linguists who are as relevant to constitutional law as bass fisherman are to table tennis tournaments. The Point I noted was that YOU PRETEND that using the terms "keeping and bearing" was intended to deny OWNING which you have not come close to proving.
that ASSumes that Keeping and bearing intentionally excludes owning when keeping is pretty much the same as owning, possessing, having, using etc
One can’t very well show up to a militia muster armed and ready to fight if one doesn’t actually own arms.
most legal scholars and those with common sense= Keeping and bearing also covers using, owning, possessing Golem-Keeping and Bearing was intended to exclude, using, carrying possessing or owning nothing he has ever cited comes even remotely close to establishing the veracity of his exclusionary nonsense. and you are right-when the second was adopted, most arms were OWNED by private citizens other than ISSUED to them by governmental authorities
