nope, keep and bear sometimes included private uses. I find Cornell to be a joke because he is DISHONEST. I have no use for people who start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it. And he doesn't have a law degree. I do. He doesn't understand firearms-I do. I reject his expertise because his political agenda trumps whatever education he might have numerous people have called him out on his dishonesty https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/a-gun-control-advocate-and-his-fabricated-facts/ https://originalismblog.typepad.com...ell-on-the-second-amendmentrobert-leiden.html Nor has Cornell done the kind of archival research necessary to support his claims.
"...the right of the people..." As you do not have a right to be part of the militia, the "right of the people" must include uses other than militia service. So much for your claim of neutrality. Whatever you believe they were trying to address, they addressed it by protecting the right of the people in toto, rather than connecting it to militia service. If you;re right, then the founders intended for women and older men have no right to keep and bear arms, much less one protected by the constitution; you cannot provide the smallest bit of primary source material to support this. Fallacy: Appeal to false authority.
Saul Cornell is a paid whore of the gun banning movement. He has no credibility as to what the founders intended
exactly, thus the silly suggestion one has to be in the militia for the right to vest is complete bullshit
I don't know if that's a silly suggestion or not. All I know is that it has NOTHING to do with the 2nd A. The 2nd A does not impede women, older men or... children... from being in the militia.
evasive nonsense. you know damn well that the second amendment negative restriction on the government applies whether the person asserting the right is in the militia, potentially in the military or never will be in the militia
I have never said anything different. "A military scenario" doesn't mean that you necessarily have to be in a militia or in the military. The only requirement for a military scenario is... that it's a military scenario. But this IS what the 2nd A refers to. In other words, you don't bear arms against a rabbit. You bear arms against enemy combatants. You try to respond to my posts so quickly that you don't read them or try to understand the point I'm making.
you constantly jump around changing your positions. Let's settle this nonsense once and for all DOES THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE lawful of age citizens an individual right to own and possess firearms? I respond to your arguments quickly because I have been doing this for over 40 years and I have seen every anti gun argument dozens of times
I have NOT changed my position since the very first post. But you refuse to understand it. It's YOU who change topics. See? There you go! The answer to your question is a most definitive NO! It does NOT guarantee a right to own a firearm any more than it guarantees your right to own a chicken. Because it doesn't ADDRESS either of those things. The 2nd A guarantees a right "to keep and bear arms"... it does NOT address some "right" to own firearms... or chickens And this is the point where you circle back to "SHOW! where it excludes owning firearms" And then I have to explain to you AGAIN that not "addressing" doesn't mean "exclude". And then we're back to square one. THAT is exactly what I think is the problem. You read some crackpot argument who knows how many years ago that you COULD rebut. So now you ascribe THAT argument to your opponent every time you see one that you can't rebut. Take a deep breath. READ what I'm saying. And answer THAT. STOP responding to things somebody said to you 40 years ago but I have NOT said. If in doubt, QUOTE what you are responding to.
bottom line the federal government was never given any proper power to regulate what arms-any kind of arms-private citizens could keep, bear, own, use buy sell, trade, barter, repair, etc. any such laws violate the TENTH amendment and arguably the NINTH amendment arms that a citizen would normally be able to bear and that is useful for militia purpose and or self defense are additionally protected by the second amendment. this negative restriction is about what the federal government CANNOT do, versus what citizens could do. the status of the citizen matters not.
AGAIN you change the subject! I'm NOT talking about the 9th or the 10th amendments. I'm talking abut the 2nd A! Regardless of whatever the 9th A and the 10th A do or don't do, the 2nd does NOT guarantee some "right" to own firearms. Changing the subject is what you do every time you can't respond to my arguments!
have you ever given us a succinct position on what you think the second amendment was intended to do and what you currently think it does. and again you fail to understand that the second is not about what citizens can do but what the government cannot do. and banning ownership is one of those things it cannot do-as long as the arm in question is one a citizen would normally keep and bear.
How is "keep and bear" anything BUT own? Have you visited Roget's lately? It's got a whole bunch of synonyms that sound like "OWN"
YES to both. Many times. In a nutshell the second amendment was intended to protect the militias. Congress was concerned that they were being neglected by the states. And they didn't trust a standing army to defend us. So a well regulated militia was NECESSARY to the security of a free state. Today we DO trust standing armies to protect us. So militias are obsolete. And, for that reason, so is the 2nd A. Right! Both the federal and the state governments CANNOT neglect the militias. They had to be kept ready to fight by the states in case Congress decided to use its power to call them BECAUSE they were necessary to the defence (sic) of a free state. It does NOT address in any way who owns the guns they use. Now you can go ahead and change the subject ... AGAIN... GO!
the gun banners like Golem KNOW that. but they cannot accept the fact that their desires to harass lawful gun owners is unconstitutional. So they engage in silly semantics and pretend that while the government cannot infringe on your right to KEEP AND BEAR-it can ban you from OWNING or POSSESSING or BUYING firearms. it's all bullshit. we know its bullshit and there does not exist a single document, speech, book memoir, etc from the relevant period of our history that even remotely hints that the founders support the nonsense Golem tries to pedal here.
that's bullshit and we both know it. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR arms is relevant and hardly obsolete as long as Democrats try to infringe on the right of the individual citizens to keep and bear arms
. But doesn't every other amendment in the Bill of Rights a guarantee of an INDIVIDUAL freedom? How many places in the BOR is "militia" mentioned?
Of course you are right. "the people" has been construed as protecting individual rights in other amendments. the claim that the second doesn't recognize an individual right is not only frivolous and nonsensical, it wasn't even adopted by the DISSENT in Heller. the only reason we have such idiotic collectivist interpretations is because gun banners know that gun banning is treasonous and violates the constitution
I announce you are going to change the subject and you deliver as expected... It's easy... you do that EVERY time you can't respond to the arguments I'm making. I don't know why I keep thinking that this time you might. Thanks for playing...
I'm only talking about the 2nd A. Whatever individual freedom you think the 2nd A protects, it is NOT some "right" to own firearms.
You miss the point. The BOR is a guarantee of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS granted to citizens. Keeping (owning) a firearm is an individual right as are the others.
you claim anyone who doesn't buy into the swill you spew is "changing the subject". Your arguments are specious semantical games-such as claiming Keep and bear excludes ownership
