It doesn't! For the hundredth time, it says "....keep and bear arms..." A very typical and inseparable idiom used in the 18th century (and beyond) that means "to maintain weapons in good working condition and ready to be used in a military conflict" http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ Which means that to save your DOGMA you need, not only to derail this thread, but ALSO derail the text of the 2nd A itself. But see how this poster keeps changing the subject? In threads where he is invited to address historical facts, he makes up nonsense about the language used, and in threads about linguistic facts (thread mentioned above), he tries to change it to crap he makes up about history, and.... around and around he goes. NEVER rebutting ANY factual argument whatsoever.
Which, BTW, you have no option given that you can't rebut it. But if that's accepted, my job is done... Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Who knows.... The point of this thread, which you just accepted above, is that the 2nd A does not address that. If you have anything OTHER than the 2nd A to debate, open your own thread.
oh I think he concedes they can KEEP firearms but there is nothing (ignoring the tenth) in the second that prevents the government from decreeing that you CANNOT OWN firearms. a specious bit of silly sophistry
and keep and bear has been used for private usage as well. Of course in an environment dominated by an ARMED REVOLUTION, military references will dominate. You pretend that since (allegedly) most of the times KEEP AND BEAR meant military use, that EXCLUDES Keep and bear from also meaning private usage. And I refer to Kates again-you cannot find any evidence that the founders meant the term to be exclusive and not covering private arms ownership or use
He will dance around that and say that is not what the second amendment says and I claim he is wrong. He will claim that keeping and bearing being protected does not mean the government is prevented (only by the second) from banning ownership. It's an angels on the pinhead bit of bullshit and practically-it is irrelevant. and he has never refuted my (and Kates') argument that even if most uses of KEEP AND BEAR is military references-other uses (which were known in the revolutionary era and the time the bill of rights was issued) including PERSONAL DEFENSE and hunting- were intended as well
I would strike that because some would claim then executive orders or bureaucratic regulations would allow it
But it's pointless to try to "debunk" the 2nd amendment. Even if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, the US government would still have no legislative athority to prevent gun ownership.
It doesn't exclude anything. It just doesn't address it one way or another. As the OP of that thread explains, a qualifier is used when the intention is to address uses other than military scenarios. There is a whole thread which I already provided a link to. If you have anything to argue about the idiom, THAT is where you do it. Off-topic here.
nonsense-keep and bear was used in that era to mean private ownership and uses including hunting and personal individual defense.
There you go folks! This two-line response tells you all you need. On one side facts, evidence, references, documented research done by experts in the field on one hand.... and, on the other, THIS poster just.... SAYING... what he would like to be true. No references, no quotes, no ... facts! If gun ownership is a religious DOGMA to you, you'll choose his side of the story. Otherwise... you won't choose mine... You'll read the references I provided and make up YOUR OWN mind based on FACTS. All you need to know is that this is how this ENTIRE debate has evolved in ALL threads about the 2nd A. BTW, as I have said MANY times, Whenever they wanted to include some personal use, they used a qualifier for that. i.e., when the idiom EXPLICITLY included those other uses (like in the Pennsylvania State Constitution). If not then it referred to what I said. As linguists in the above referenced post demonstrate. In fact, anti-federalists WANTED to include the qualifier, but they were voted down.
do you have ANY FACTS that establish that "keep and bear" NEVER meant uses other than collective military action? how do you keep and bear firearms for militia use without owning or possessing them in your home?
So.... you didn't read the post you quoted. I'll repeat the last paragraph. BTW, as I have said MANY times, Whenever they wanted to include some personal use, they used a qualifier for that. i.e., when the idiom EXPLICITLY included those other uses (like in the Pennsylvania State Constitution). If not then it referred to what I said. As linguists in the above referenced post demonstrate. In fact, anti-federalists WANTED to include the qualifier, but they were voted down. So, again: yes. It CAN! But you would need a qualifier. Pennsylvania chose to include it. The US Congress chose NOT to include it. Including it was proposed and rejected! Such a dumb and irrelevant question. The 2nd A doesn't say. Just like the 4th Amendment doesn't say how you can be "secure" in you house if you don't OWN a house. I already said, it doesn't ADDRESS gun ownership. At all! Nor does ANY Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 might give a you a hint, The question, as it relates to this topic, is STILL pretty dumb.
So "keep and bear arms" has *never* meant anything other than to serve in the military. That's what your experts say?
and if they say that they are lying. I already cited an article where Keep and bear was documented to be -in some cases-for uses other than common military duty
HISTORY OF THE US SECOND AMMENDMENT. Dates back to at least Alfred the Great, King of England. (900 AD period) His army was not large enough to protect all the coastal settlements of England from Viking raids. He ordered his subjects to arm themselves. Much later the long bow was the main English military weapon. When a son turned 14 his father, by law, was ordered to give him a bow and arrows. From the preamble to the English Bill of Rights, 1689. (Compares to the US Declaration of Independence) SELECTED QUOTES: Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law; That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law; That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; END QUOTES. In "Commentaries On The Laws Of England" Blackstone remarks that the Bill of Rights gives the population the means to revolt. The English colonists in North America lived under English law so they individually had a 'right' to arms, "as allowed by law". Parliament could change that 'right' as they saw fit. The US version: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the last four words in each 'right'. This was not a new 'right' but a strengthened affirmation of a 'right' which existed long before the US Revolution, with no mention of religion, or of rich or poor 'condition'). "Yale.edu" has the entire English document, along with the Athenian Constitution and many others. (At one point in time in Athens in order to be eligible to vote, you had to own a 'military weapon'.)
I'm not 100% sure what "keep and bear arms" would mean in isolation but the Second Amendment's preamble concerns a well-regulated militia so I think the most logical conclusion is that "keep and bear arms" has a military meaning in the Second Amendment.
yeah it does but it also was well known to mean other things and if you read the writings of the founders, it is clear that an individual right to own arms was protected as well.
I had read the document cited by @Patricio Da Silva a couple of years ago. It's a VERY thorough document. It relates in detail the relevant parts of the discussions leading up to passing the 2nd A. What is clear is that, basically, the intention of the 2nd A was to avoid a standing army and instead rely on the militias. There was NO mention or reference to owning firearms (one way or the other) in the debates. Instead most of the discussions centered around whether or not to outright make it illegal to rely on a sitting army. There was also a lot of talk about a "religious objector" clause. In summary, in the minds of those who voted to ratify the 2nd A, it wasn't either an individual right or a collective right, but more a civic right. So basically the 2nd A meant that abled bodied people should be compelled to enlist in a sort of "army" that was NOT a "standing army" (wording was carefully chosen to avoid saying this directly), but that not everybody would be accepted but only (in the words of Alexander Hamilton) a "select corps". It's a really interesting document. Anybody who REALLY wants to understand what the 2nd A was about should take the time to read it. Of course, nobody that has already accepted the Scalia/NRA nonsense that it refers to some "right to own weapons" will. Oh... and please note the fact that I moved this to a different thread in which the topic is more relevant.
I prefer to look at the words in the Constitution rather than trying read the minds of the people who wrote it. "Shall not be infringed" says it all. There is no ambiguity there whatsoever. I have taken the oath to the Constitution around six times over the years. None of the oaths mentioned the framers of the Constitution.
It is not reasonable to believe that the intended purpose of the second amendment was to ban citizens from owning firearms until they join a militia, That would mean that the average citizen would join the militia with no marksmanship skills or experience with firearms.
