Yep. I know. I addressed it. Keep = own and possess. Because you cannot have a right to possess something that you do not own. You also said: I addressed this as well: "...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. Absent your meaningful response, your premise stands as demonstrably unsound.
the twisted attempts to reinterpret the second amendment that fly in the face of the obvious intent of the founders is strong proof that those doing the twisting really do understand that their schemes to disarm American citizens are blatantly unconstitutional
You can, but that makes no difference because it's NOT "possess". It's "keep and bear arms". When you keep and bear arms, it's absolutely IRRELEVANT if you own them or not. Who owns the guns makes no difference in the idioms "keep arms" and "bear arms". That makes no difference. They have a right to keep and bear arms! And it STILL makes no difference who owns the guns. Do you notice how you can't make any point without using the word "own"? I'm not disputing if they have a right to use a firearm or WHERE you use it. I am saying that, whatever the 2nd A protects, it is NOT some right to OWN guns And in some state constitution this is explicitly addressed. But NOT in the 2nd A. In fact, including some of those was discussed if that should be included and voted down by Congress. Therefore, you are defending a premise that LOST. You have STILL not addressed my premise. You keep talking about irrelevant things like "use" or "possess" or "hunting"..., which make NO difference to what I'm saying. Which is simply that "keep and bear arms" does not mean, nor was it ever the intention to mean (which is the topic of the other thread I mentioned) "own guns".
To rebut the statement "it includes owning arms" it's the only thing I NEED to do. If you don't understand why, feel free to ask. As a matter of fact, my intention when providing that succinct answer is, in fact, so that people who don't understand it, ask.
Reviewing what Neal Goldfarb had to say about the people in the Second Amendment: "The issue regarding the interpretation of the people as it is used in the Second Amendment arises from the fact that contextual factors point in different directions. Under the analysis in Heller, the relevant context is the use of the people in provisions other than the Second Amendment. Under my analysis, on the other hand, the relevant context is the text of the Second Amendment itself.... "The local context in which the right of the people would have been understood was the Second Amendment’s preamble, which stated that a 'well regulated Militia' is 'necessary for the security of a free State[.]' The local context therefore focused readers’ attention very specifically on the militia.... "And as I said there, the data was dominated by uses that I interpreted as being collective. That by itself provides some support for interpreting the people in the Second Amendment as meaning in effect 'militia-eligible people,’ since serving a militia inherently involves collective action. But more important was the substance of the collective rights, all of which had to do with the relationship between the people and the government.... "These rights presumably extended only to white male adults—a category only slightly broader than the category of those eligible for militia service. If that’s correct, it would significantly diminish the significance of the fact that the right to bear arms is described in the Second Amendment as belonging to the People.... "Given that the preamble always has the potential to influence how the operative clause is understood, the question arises whether the preamble’s focus on the militia could have led readers to understand the people to refer only to militia members..... That’s unlikely to be an issue here because the Second Amendment is a relatively autonomous chunk of text rather than part of a connected line of discourse." https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43675 Yes, I agree that the Second Amendment is an autonomous chunk of text. The immediate context of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. It is not the First or Fourth amendments. Those amendments could be removed from the Bill of Rights and the meaning of the Second Amendment would be unchanged. On the other hand, if the preamble were removed from the Second Amendment then there would be more room to argue that a right to use guns for private purposes is protected. As it is, the preamble about a well-regulated militia is literally in the same sentence as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The actual content of the Second Amendment is of primary relevance (rather than what is in other amendments) when it comes to understanding what the Second Amendment means. This should be obvious, but I think Heller managed to muddy the waters.
This is the PROPER analysis as it should have been done by the Supreme Court. It is further supported by historical facts, and by everything we know about the discussions in Congress leading to the 2nd A. The focus is definitely on the militia. And the right to keep and bear arms is intended to address the militia. It doesn't say that ONLY the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. That right exists independently of 2nd A or not. But it says that it's the militia what needs to be protected. And it's protected BY not infringing this right. This would be the interesting focus I would have loved to give to this thread. However, it opens it to many strawman arguments from gun advocates. So I have been trying to focus on explaining the simple fact that "owning guns" was NEVER the question the 2nd A intended to answer.
the anti gun left constantly confuses the scope of an amendment in the bill of rights with its ever changing coverage.
Is this a rather long way of conceding the the people who are not currently in the militia and may never be in the militia are second amendment rights?
The only reference the 2nd A makes about them is to imply that they are not necessary to the security of a free state. So, as it pertains to the 2nd A, it makes no difference what they do or don't do. Whatever "rights" they have, are not addressed, conferred, granted, guaranteed... (whatever word you want to use) by the 2nd A. For all the 2nd A, they can go ahead and throw rocks at the enemy! They have that right. At which point, those rocks become weapons of wars.
why don't you just plainly state what you believe you clearly want to argue that the second amendment does not protect the right of individual citizens to own arms. Most of us reject that.
If you want to discuss beliefs, there is a Religion forum which might be more suitable for you THIS one is about facts. Oh? Is THAT the conclusion you drew from the facts that I presented? Interesting... My point is that I have not found anything. Not in the wording, not in the linguistics, not in history... nowhere... that supports the claim that the second amendment was intended to protect an individual right to own guns. If you can't find any either, than I guess the conclusion you reached makes sense.
more evasions. Nothing factual about your claims the entire purpose of the second amendment was to prevent a federal government-that was NEVER GIVEN ANY PROPER POWER to interfere with arms usage and ownership by the citizens, from infringing on the citizens owning, using, bearing, Keeping etc arms
well I suspect that is because you have either ignored obvious evidence or that you never made any attempt to actually find anything that contradicted your pre-existing belief that your desire to ban all guns is not unconstitutional
Well... if the government never had that power, than looking for it to be restricted in the 2nd A makes no sense. The amendment is superfluous. We disagree on the reason, but our conclusion is the same.
no it isn't. it never was given any power to regulate free speech, religion, assembly etc either It is clear to me and many others that these continued attempts to try to limit the negative restriction on the federal government is coming from those who have a burning desire for the federal government to interfere with rights that these advocates don't like
These threads are about to turn three, and not a SINGLE reference to the discussions in Congress leading to the 2nd A have been presented. I do have many many posts of people saying they presented the evidence. But when challenged, turns out the evidence they present does not even address that fact. Sure have. These threads were my ultimate attempt. They have been here for almost three years. If gun advocates can't find a reference, why would I expect to find it on my own?
why are you posting nonsense that you know is not true. shall I educate you again about why the bill of rights was enacted even though some of the federalists claimed that since the federal government was never given lots of powers, there was no reason for that to be restated in a bill of rights?
Not really interested. Especially since you have now agreed that the 2nd A is superfluous. But feel free to open a thread, if you want.
why do you dishonestly claim it is superfluous especially in light of incorporation. yes, if the 14th had never existed, then the tenth amendment should have wiped out ANY AND ALL federal firearms laws, but with incorporation the second is the teeth that tears apart state idiocy concerning guns
