It is the reality that they are upholding the Constitution that makes Heller and Bruen a strong precedent.
There was, however, a reference to owning firearms in the list of proposals that came out of the debates: "17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms: that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." "18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct." "19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead." https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/virginia-ratifying-convention-amendment-proposals-va/ https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s43.html That is incorrect. All rights are individual rights. There isn't any other kind of right. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment does not mandate any enlistment in an organized militia. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment does not mandate that the organized militia be limited to a select militia. The Second Amendment mandates that there be an organized militia and that they be allowed to train. But it leaves it entirely up to Congress whether the organized militia will comprise all militiamen or be only a select militia. Reality is not nonsense. The Second Amendment protects a right to own weapons, and it always has done so.
AGAIN: "keep and bear arms", yes. "Own guns" NO! The rest of your post is just a repetition of "That's incorrect" and no arguments. The only relevance of your post is that it's clear you have been busy LOOKING for some reference to "owning firearms" in the discussions in Congress leading to the ratification of 2nd A, and have found none. You're not alone. I started this thread two years ago, MANY have been looking for that reference. And have found NONE. To any objetive reader that means that such references simply don't exist. So the question remains: "How would it be possible that Congress supposedly passes a Constitutional Amendment intended to [guarantee, affirm, enact, proclaim... whatever word you want to use] some "right" to own firearms without owning firearms even MENTIONED in the discussions? The more they look, the less they find. What does that tell you?
if the government cannot prevent private citizens from keeping and bearing arms, can that government ban them from OWNING them. you try to pretend that keeping and bearing does not include ownership. that is beyond specious.
Keeping arms includes owning guns. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is incorrect. I've not been trying to look anything up. "Protecting the right of free people to keep and bear arms" allows people to acquire their own arms even if the government refuses to provide them with arms.
"Keep and Bear Arms" is an idiom that had a particular meaning in the 18th Century (and up until NRA propaganda changed it around the later part of the 20th Century) that evoked a military scenario in the mind of any average English speaker at the time. Owning or not guns was simply irrelevant. Again, different topic: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ I have asserted NOTHING. Anybody who asserts that the 2nd A protects a right to own guns must show evidence. The negation is the default position. THIS thread is based on the default position. That there was NO discussion whatsoever in Congress about owning guns during the deliberations that lead up to drafting the final version of the 2nd A. The task to demonstrate the default position is easy: simply show a reference where this was discussed. Absent such reference, the default position stands. And the question becomes: how would it be even IMAGINABLE that the framers would enact legislation intended to [protect, grant, confer, establish, preserve... pick whichever word you want] some "right to own guns" without ever MENTIONING owning guns. Clearly...
the federal government was never given any power in this area. and your argument is as inane as saying that the second amendment does not protect against the government banning "transporting or "storing" arms because it only said keeping and bearing
Has anyone else noted that @Golem has never explained the practicality of how the government is not prevented from banning OWNERSHIP of guns but is banned from interfering with KEEPING AND BEARING?
All I know is it doesn't protect a right to own guns. They never mentioned it in any of the debates in Congress leading to the final draft of the 2nd A. So your task is easy. Either SHOW some reference during the afore mentioned debates, or explain how it could be even POSSIBLE that people who are elected to Congress can sit and discuss an Amendment to protect [or whatever word you want to use] some "right to own guns", and never even MENTION owning guns. Why you cut through the crap and DO that? Look. Here is the bottom line: there are probably great arguments to defend a right to own guns. It's just that the 2nd A is NOT one of them. You need to look elsewhere. Because if the 2nd A is all you got... there will eventually be a Supreme Court that is not dominated by activist justices. And you can be SURE that, when that happens, Heller is going away. Because the historical and linguistic arguments Scalia used are utter made-up nonsense. And I'm not the one saying this. It's historians and linguists who say it. Scalia may be a great legal scholar. But he is NOT either a competent historian or linguist.
you cannot prove that--you want to pretend that keep and bear doesn't include owning which is absolute nonsense. and guess what-the ONLY REASON WHY federal gun control exists was due to DISHONEST FDR justices and FDR and his congressional minions. You NEVER EVER EXPLAIN HOW PRIVATE citizens right to keep and bear arms would exist if the federal government could BAN OWNING GUNS using Golem "logic" possessing, carrying, storing, using, collecting, Looking at, oiling, bluing, repairing,, buying, gifting, transporting firearms is NOT protected because he pretends KEEPING and BEARING encompasses NONE of that is there anyone who actually believes that is what the founders intended?
You're right. I cannot prove a negative. But YOU can prove a positive statement. Just show the reference. The fact that this thread is almost 2 years old and NOBODY has is clear indication that such reference does not exist. Why not? Folks in the military have managed to do that just fine...
Ok. Does that mean you're prepared to show us a reference to a discussion in congress during the debate leading to passing the 2nd A about owning arms? If you can't, please be aware that EVERY attempt to sidestep showing this reference makes my case stronger.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/keep# https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keep to retain in one's possession or power Your argument is this @Golem -that somehow the founders by using the term KEEP did not INTEND that to include OWN. You cannot find a single argument that supports this chicanery.
I'm not sidestepping anything. References to keeping arms are all over the place. To keep is a synonym for ownership and possession. Keep a copy for your file, for example. Keep it secret, keep it safe. Keep my love with you. Etc.
To expand-what is the far more likely answer: the founders saw Keeping and bearing as owning possessing, obtaining, carrying using etc arms or they did not any guesses?
have you noticed a complete failure to address the question of how can a citizen keep and bear arms if the government has the power to ban OWNERSHIP it is so mind-boggling silly that one has to laugh
This is wonderful! Just like a few days ago we settled the topic of "Who belongs to the well-regulated militia", we are now done looking for the non-existent reference to owning guns during the deliberations in Congress, and we move on to the meaning of keep and bear arms. We are definitely making progress But, again (as I said in the thread about well regulated militia members) that is not the topic of THIS thread. So I'll respond in the thread where that IS the topic. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-bear-arms.586083/page-61#post-1074629971
Then show the quote. Do I have to ask three times? Every time I have to ask, and you don't show it, my case becomes stronger.
You had it before you asked me the first time, and I linked you back to it. Its RIGHT THERE DUDE. READ. Every time I show you and you pretend you didn't see it, your credibility evaporates.
He quotes a post where I've linked him to a quote, demanding a quote with all the smugness of a 5 yr old who thinks they have a winning hand at uno.
It's beyond silly. I want him to explain what Keeping and bearing means if ownership is banned. because that is what he claims the second would allow. It's stunningly supercilious
Stop! "Keep and bear arms", as we have already established, is NOT "owning guns" http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ And that quote is NOT from the U.S. Congress deliberations.
