A serious analysis of "Guns don't kill people... people kill people"

Yeah. To possess the upper extremities attached to your shoulder. Which would make amputation unconstitutional. However, as historians and linguists have demonstrated, neither of those is the sense in which the idioms are used in the 2nd A. But you're not going to refer to their arguments. Therefore, my their case is made...

 

it's that keep that really destroys your creative but unsupported argument that the second amendment doesn't protect private arms ownership. Some Linquists and some historians have claimed that "keep and bear" USUALLy meant in a military context. but militia is expected to supply its own arms. and Keep normally means to possess. You never answered how the federal government was going to allow possession but not ownership

once again your attempts to ignore reality and reject constitutional scholarship and case law fails

 

Okydoke.

No, it's just an attempt to move the "debate" forward. You know what a stickler you are about "pure debated".

According to you it's only nonsense when it's not your nonsense.

No, YOU mentioned IN the OP.

You've been very successful at moving OFF topic when it bails you out of losing an argument or, inversely holding other ON topic when you're losing a different point ... that YOU took OFF topic.

YES! I AbsaByGodLutely do and did have something to say about "THE TOPIC", which I referenced in the post in the post you're now quoting and MADE in my FIRST post of this thread #423. Which you conveniently cut of your reply.

You capitulated in your reply but then took it back because your "therefore" "was pure logic".

Looks like you aren't really looking for a simple therefore, you should have let us in on that little secret.

Your "debate" methods are very disingenuous but, everyone including you knows that.

Which proves my point, you disingenuously cut "MY" THEREFORE out so you could claim "nobody has"

 

Really? So you're telling me that a misunderstood out of context use of the word "keep" is ALL you have?

That's wonderful! I could not have hoped for a more definitive confirmation of my point.

 

Oh contraire, go back through those threads and you'll find that your historians and linguists were "rebutted" by other historians and linguists, at least two one, many times on every page. But, you just discounted those rebuttles.

Justice Scalia wrote HIS majority response without refereeing historians or linguists because he didn't feel he had to. That doesn't mean he made up his response "out of thin air".

See my first sentence of this reply

No, it's funny that you ignore ALL the ones that did.

Hopefully not those threads were talked to death, like this one is being, because you so underhanded in your methods. Which carries your gun threads out far past what they deserve.

The were ad nauseam.

But in the context of "Heller, Bruen and, McDonald" they didn't.

I rebutted them and so did everyone that addressed that issue in those threads.

BUT! Whatever happened to "ON TOPIC"? It appears you've strayed a long way form "THEREFORE".

 

Every time I move off-topic is as a courtesy to somebody who is moving off-topic. However, I have a thread for every single RELEVANT argument in this thread. Only ones I do not have a thread for are absurd red herrings like questioning that the minimum number of people involved in a gun sale are a buyer and a seller. For everything else I have.

BTW, how else could one interpret a poster trying to change the topic with red-herrings like those than attempts to run away from debating the REAL point?

I don't keep track of post numbers. I use links but, if we're talking about the same post, I not only agreed with your first post and explained my position with better precision, but even gave yours a "like". Unless there was one before that that I might have missed. If that was it... we're good....

 

And each and every time you've been refuted, even though you go on and, on and on ... that you haven't.

Golem you go OFF topic when it suits YOU and require absolute fidelity TO the topic when that suits you. Most often when you're losing a debate.

I reference the number, that seems to be the standard here; it's not hard to find. So, then you're admitting that you were prevaricating when you said:

 

no I have hundreds of other things
1) the context of the second amendment in terms of the time it was written and the fact that the founders never gave the government any restrictive gun control powers
2) the nature of a militia and the fact it is an ad hoc military unit called up in an emergency and that required the potential members to be armed
3) the Term "THE PEOPLE"
4) the term KEEP


what do you have-at best you can pretend that the founders only intended Keep and bear to mean in relation to military service but that has absolutely no ability to denigrate the private right. and the concept of a militia obviously contemplates the private ownership and keeping of firearms by those WHO MIGHT serve. Your convoluted out come based misinterpretation suggests that those who answered the call up would not own firearms but be issued them which makes no sense.

 

bingo. "it's only a flesh wound"

 

Nope! There weren't.

Go there and show me different. Here. Try this one, for example. I believe this one more or less summarizes the others.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

However, if you want to debate linguistics, feel free to go to one of the linguistic threads. However, those demonstrate specific points. I think the above proves the main one. Even though it's complemented with this one about the different versions of the text of the 2nd A that were considered but didn't pass.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/

I think the proposals that were discussed but DIDN'T make it into the amendment are significant to understand their intentions.

All you have to do is click the link and show us....

Not to mention that he couldn't. It would be naïve to believe that he wouldn't have referenced them if they helped make his case.

What is not funny is that you keep SAYING they exist, but you don't quote them. Do it in the appropriate thread and as a response to the arguments there.

The reason I ask this is because I have seen many rebutals of points that NOBODY has ever made. This guy @Turtledude keeps "rebutting" some argument that... I don't know where he got it from or if he made it up, that
"somebody" thinks (we never get to know who) that the 2nd A was intended to allow ONLY members of the militia to own guns. He keeps debunking this argument that he himself made up.

You got me! Is that why you kept responding here and not in the corresponding topic?

 

who actually decides? left wing linguists or historians? NO and there are plenty other academics who support the proper interpretation. the right applied to "the people which now means all lawful citizens of the proper age. End of story

 

One of the problems you have @Golem is that you never really attempt to explain -in practical terms-what your interpretation of the second amendment would do. Ours is rather obvious-the federal government cannot interfere with private citizens owning, acquiring etc firearms and other similar weapons. You have never ever explain exactly how your definition would work and I expect that is due to the fact you really haven't thought that out

 

You can do whatever the hell you want. I use links to make it easier for the other person to just click it. If you think that using numbers is better because most people won't bother, that's your prerogative.

I read your post. And it's all about going off topic, and how to reference a post. No substance. So I guess the discussion is over. And, as always, not rebuttal.

The threads with the Linguistic and Historical arguments will always be there. Let me know if you ever come up with a REAL argument.

 

and why do anti gun linguists matter when others refute their outcome based bit? same with left wing historians. what you fail to discuss is -as Kates noted-that in the context of when the Bill of Rights was created-it was obvious the founders wanted an armed citizenry

 

You finally got to the truth, you buried; but there it is.

You go on and on, trying not to admit you're a gun banner; but we all know you are.

 

Wonderful Let's start with the first one. I'll move it to the appropriate thread. Given that @Noone is already complaining because this is not the topic of this thread. But you will find my answer here
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-2nd-amendment.586263/page-36#post-1074455577

 

no need to move anything so you can divert again-tell us what the practical application of your version of the second amendment would do

 

Well, you cut it out again, you wanted a therefore to: "guns don't kill people, people do". And I gave you one, which you admitted I was "absolutely right". My "therefore was just as valid as yours. Actually MORE valid, since MINE was within our Constitutional rights. Yours violates them.

Your other threads were debunked months ago. But it comes down to this: the law we live by in the U.S. is individuals have a right to own firearms in common use. <- Period

 

my favorite is the current jihad against "military style weapons" which flies in the face of "it's to guarantee that the militia (ie military use) be armed"

 

I already said the "therefore" you wrote in your original response was BETTER than mine. That's why I gave you a "like".

 

Not quite:
"My "therefore was just as valid as yours. Actually MORE valid, since MINE was within our Constitutional rights. Yours violates them."

 

I see no difference in that aspect. But it doesn't matter, because the premise is flawed anyway.

 

The "difference" is my "therefore" is Constitutional; yours ... IS NOT.

It's YOUR "premise", like all the rest of your gun threads; "the premise is flawed anyway".

 

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The entire dissent is worth reading whether you agree with it or not.

 

Miller's case-which was a set up by an anti gun district judge to create a supreme court ruling supporting FDR-was not dismissed due to standing. Do you understand that that means? would you agree light machine guns and automatic rifles-both of which were in common use by the National Guard in 1938-were weapons that met the miller test?

BTW what you quoted was the much lampooned dissent in Heller. IN other words, the position that LOST