they would have to remove the second and then actually amend article one section eight to honestly allow federal gun control-rather than that fraudulent expansion of the commerce clause
Good point! And attempting to do THAT would keep the anti-self-defense radicals busy for a while... uh, QUITE a while....
There's no confusion. The right of "the people" Not the state, not the state militia, not the militia , not the people in the militia -- the people. A collective of people cannot have a right the individuals of that collective do not also possess, so the right must be possessed by the individual person. Keep = own and possess. Because you cannot have a right to possess something that you do not own. "...the right to keep and bear arms" No one has the right to join the militia, so the right to keep and bear arms cannot be linked to the militia. Thus, the right to keep and bear arms must include the right to use firearms outside service in the militia - that is, outside the "military scenario". Among other things, these other uses include hunting, sports and self-defense, as these were the most common uses for a firearm at the time. Bottom line: Your argument is, at best, unpersuasive.
It's an amusing argument -he has claimed that the government could BAN the owning of firearms without infringing on the "right to keep and bear". Yeah seriously
There sure wasn't when the 2nd A was drafted, as the OP demonstrates. I have said nothing different. To "keep and bear arms" IS the right of the people. Which is NOT the same as "the right to own guns". As the OP demonstrates from the point of view of linguistics, and as the following thread confirms from a HISTORICAL perspective. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ Irrelevant to this thread. The meaning of "keep and bear arms" is what this thread is about.
Oh, stop! You're painting yourself into 'a corner of the absurd'. What do you think that the Framers of the Constitution where talking about when they wrote about "keeping and bearing arms"? "Arms" in the 18th-century (as well as today) are FIREARMS.
they try to squirm around the obvious meaning by pretending Keep and bear doesn't protect carrying, using owning possessing buying etc.
It makes no difference what I think. What matters is what linguists have PROVEN. Do you often jump into a thread without reading the OP?
Actually, I wrote a post in this thread as recently as #1575... and even then I marvelled at what "Himalayan mountain range" someone has made out of an imaginary "mole hill". But, I'll acquiesce in this strange exercise of inventive language 'translation' which could have "arms" mean anything other than "firearms" in the context of the Second Amendment.... . So, maybe THIS is what they meant... right...?
So you forgot, huh! Ok... that happens. Apology accepted. I could quote you THOUSANDS of texts pre-dating the 2nd A in which the word "arms" does not mean firearms". Ever hear the name William Shakespeare? Quite a popular read at the time. In any case, it's NOT "arms". It's "keep and bear arms". Please try to focus. And if your memory ain't what it used to be re-read the OP before posting.
But in your Post #1580, you wrote, "To "keep and bear arms" IS the right of the people. Which is NOT the same as "the right to own guns". Moreover, the first sentence of your OP stated, "I must clarify that this is not about gun control Anybody who interprets this as a thread about "gun control" is making an incorrect assumption." Thus, we were given to understand from the very beginning that it was not your contention that ownership of "arms" should be inhibited (or, as the 2nd Amendment put it, "infringed"). Next, if you weren't trying to confuse the definition of the word "arms" with "guns" then what was the point of saying that?! In the context of spoken English in the 18th-century -- and today -- when referring to the 2nd Amendment, "arms" means "firearms"! And, "firearms" means "guns" (but not atomic weapons in case you were thinking about going there next....)
Linguists have no standing in this discussion and they haven't proven anything. what they claim is that Keep and bear was MAINLY but not EXCLUSIVELY a military term which is EASILY EXPLAINBLE because the creation of the new government was founded upon a WAR OF LIBERATION
Ordinarily the OP creator does make more plausible, logical assertions than the one he's tried to propose in this thread. It may be, as you suggest, as a result of 'desperation', but I think it's more an outgrowth of frustration experienced by those opposed to gun ownership in this country as they fully comprehend the sheer magnitude of the effort that would be required to have the 2nd Amendment re-amended, or thrown out altogether....
Again: It's not "arms" vs "guns". It's "keep and bear arms" vs "own guns". I'm doing exactly the opposite of trying to "confuse". I'm differentiating them.
Linguistics have EVERY standing in a discussion about language. But it doesn't actually matter that much. What DOES have standing are the databases.
Restating your unpersuasive argument only demonstrates your inability to effectively respond to my, cogent, sound, and axiomatic criticism.
the data bases that you seem to not understand are skewed by the fact the founders had just been in a war? What did Trench Cox say Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. - Tenche Coxe -Feb 20, 1788 Pennsylvania Congressman The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
guns are the very arms contemplated: the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to own GUNS (firearms)
I guess I just don't fully comprehend the difference between "keeping and bearing" something versus "owning" something. But, I think I've gleaned about all there is for me in this thread, so I'll just retire from it and THANK GOD that although we Americans must deal with an increasingly uncontrollable, criminal element in our population, at least we individual citizens still have the right to protect ourselves with deadly force if needed.
keeping and bearing includes owning. that's obvious to anyone who isn't engaged in an outcome based re-interpretation of what is obvious
There actually is an identifiable distinction in at least one other language that I know of (German). But to the best of my knowledge, in the English of the 18th-century, and our language today, 'keeping and bearing' does include 'owning' in terms of the prerogatives of ownership and the legitimate uses of a 'thing' (guns, etc.). For some reason this whole thing makes me remember that in 16th-century English (Book of Common Prayer), marriage vows stating that the man and woman were joined in a relationship that included "to have and to hold" were considered to be the most inviolable of all....
So the English language used in the Amendment was ALSO skewed by the fact that the founders had just been in war. What Trench Cox said is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Congress APPROVED. Trench Cox wasn't even in Congress when the 2nd A was discussed and approved. In fact OWNING firearms was never discussed in those debates in Congress, as you have now verified after years of searching and not finding a single reference.
It's very simple. For example, you could hire a gardener to "keep" your garden. That doesn't mean they own it. "Keep arms" and "bear arms" were idioms very often used in the literature at the time. As the OP demonstrates, the context in which they were used was invariably a military scenario.
LOL that's hilarious. keeping and bearing include owning. I suspect the founders never contemplated the desperate attempts that anti gun activists (who probably didn't exist back then) would go to pretend the government had a power that none of the founders remotely thought it did. YOU NEVER HAVE TOLD US what exactly YOUR SIDE gains by claiming ownership is not protected but keeping and bearing is. It's a worthless distinction and we both know it
