Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

When discussing the 2nd A, the proposal was made in the House and REJECTED after it was ridiculed by Noah Webster who asked sarcastically why not also include “That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.”

So now you know. It's not that Congress wasn't thinking about establishing a "right to own weapons". They considered it and it was voted down.

NOT in "Keep and bear arms". Just like when a housekeeper "keeps" a house, it doesn't mean it's their possession.

100%. They also have a right to deny quarters to a soldier in times of peace, as per the 3rd Amendment. Neither of which has any relevance today.

 

The intent of the Founding Fathers is never a moot point in a discussion about the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

Your claim about the chances of guerrilla warfare is disproven by history.

I am unsure how guerilla warfare is relevant to the question of the Second Amendment however. I thought you had expressed agreement that the intent of the Second Amendment was not to overthrow the government.

Anyone who is interested in the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment.

People are obligated to follow laws until they are repealed.

Not to mention the fact that freedom will never be obsolete in America.

Was anyone here even making the fighting tyranny argument?

Off topic, but all that proves is that progressives love tyranny.

It's not as if anyone here has even made such a claim.

Nonsense. Our freedom is of vital importance.

The Second Amendment does not grant. It protects a preexisting right that has been around for thousands of years.

That is incorrect. People who lack the right to keep and bear arms are not free.

That only covers transfers across state lines.

Those constraints include the right to keep and bear arms.

That just means that it is important to always vote for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump), because the left means to abolish our freedom and violate our civil liberties.

Hardly. He kept whining about "gun deaths" as if it somehow mattered whether a murder victim is killed with a gun instead of being killed with some other kind of weapon.

He also felt that civil liberties should be abolished in order to make life more convenient for the police. I'd hate to see his stance on whether the police should be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects.

Fortunately for me, no there aren't.

Not that it would matter even if there were. I have the Constitution on my side, and that overrides the will of the voters.

 

Congress knew that the right of free people to keep and bear arms has existed for thousands of years, and was not under any illusion that they needed to create such a right.

While they did not create this right, they did provide Constitutional protection for it.

Thus the second half of the Second Amendment.

That is incorrect. Keeping arms includes possession of said arms.

Someone could not show up with their arms when called out to militia duty if they were not in possession of those arms.

That's not quite the same meaning of "keep" as used in the Second Amendment, but note that housekeepers have to have ready access to the house that they keep.

Both are relevant today.

 

Another false statement, intentionally made.

The parts you left off:
Enumerate all the rights of men? I am sure that no gentleman in the late convention would have attempted such a thing. Why not include a provision that everybody shall, in good weather, hunt on his own land and catch fish in rivers that are public property and that Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter's night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.

Webster, as quoted above, like Hamilton and Madison, did not speak in specific opposition to the establishment of a right to own weapons -- he, in the entirety of his expression, spoke in opposition to the bill of rights in toto --

Webster, further:
In our governments, there is no power of legislation, inde-
pendent of the people; no power that has an interest detached
from that of the public; consequently there is no power exist-
ing against which it is necessary to guard. While our Legisla-
tures therefore remain elective, and the rulers have the same
interest in the laws, as the subjects have, the rights of the
people will be perfectly secure without any declaration in
their favor.

Webster, further:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

You chose to take your except out of context, to make a point you know you cannot otherwise support.
That is:
You choose to lie.

 

Exactly!

 

Isn’t it interesting the no gun nuts keep referring to tyranny perpetrated by the standing army and how great it would be to smoke gun owning folks? Alway talking about nuking citizens and blowing them up with tanks and F-15’s.

These morons prove every day there is a need for an armed populace more than ever. Can you imagine Webster etal reading these clowns talking about wasting citizens with F-15s? What would his reaction be?

 

Bingo!!!!

The sure did!! Just like the right to own a horse, or boots, or a house... existed for thousands of years. Just like the right to "eat and drink at seasonable times..." (as Noah Webster pointed out) did also. And, for that reason, they found it ABSURD to write a constitutional Amendment to address ANY of those rights.

So they didn't!!! See? It wasn't that difficult for you and I to agree.

But then, this is the part where you realize "Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the thousand year thing.... Because it plays into Golem's argument that, because the right ALREADY existed, then the 2nd A doesn't address it"

They tried to. The anti-federalists did (those who wanted one central government instead of a federation of states)

This was their proposal:

“7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own
state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people
or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from
individuals.”​

Now THAT sounds like somebody REALLY trying to establish a personal right to own weapons. If they had wanted to enact, or affirm, or "protect" a right to OWN weapons, THAT is what they would have passed (or something like it) But, guess what...

It failed!!! The "NAYs" have it!

If you want to discuss the meaning of "keep and bear arms", this was the subject of a scientific study by the most prominent linguists and philologists in the country in which they took EVERYTHING that was written at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted: every book, article, letter, ... even signs... The results can be seen here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

Spoiler alert: there is not a single instance in which "keep and bear arms" is used (see the parameters specified in the study) to mean anything OTHER than "a military scenario".

 

They didn't speak in opposition to the Bill of Rights. No clue where you got THAT idea. They spoke (or, at least, Webster did) in opposition to listing rights that, to them, were OBVIOUS. Like the right to own a horse, a house or a gun. There was no difference whatsoever between owning any of them. Your quote doesn't add anything to mine, except more words.

They DID vote (well... the federalists who could vote) in opposition to the anti-federalist version which would have read

“7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”
​

THIS (or something more similar to that than to what they finally approved) would have passed if their intention had been to address a right to own weapons. It did not. That was not their concern. Their concern was that the states did not disregard their militias because they were "necessary to the security of a free state".

 

I doubt that you can establish the existence of such rights.

That is incorrect. They found it vital to have a Constitutional amendment protect the right to keep and bear arms from infringement.

That is incorrect. They wrote an amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms from infringement.

Except the Second Amendment does address it.

They succeeded.

Not quite. This was what the Anti-Federalists proposed:

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.

This one passed:
A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That would be the thread where you address "bear" alone without ever addressing "keep".

Well duh. Of course they only addressed military scenarios.

That's why the Second Amendment protects our right to have weapons like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.

Yes they did. They feared that any such list would wrongly exclude some rights.

That's why the Ninth Amendment was passed, to address those fears.

The version that did pass protects our right to own weapons just fine.

The fact that they passed specific protection for the right to keep and bear arms says otherwise.

No it wasn't. Their concern was that the federal government would try to prevent the people from being armed.

 

That's an absurd response. You want to debate Noah Webster, go right ahead. I could care less!

They had every opportunity. They could have adopted the proposal of the anti-federalists. They could have copied the constitution of the states that DO protect that right. But they didn't!

What???? No "killing game"? No "defense of themselves"? Hmmm... looks like they had no interest in protecting some personal "right" to own weapons for personal use.

Ok. So that would end of that part.

If you want to discuss the meaning of "keep and bear arms", you now know where the scientific study is explained.

Here it is, just in case you don't have the link handy.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/

 

Incorrect. For those interested in truth instead of Golem’s opinions based on dishonest sources I recommend this post that invalidated Golem’s thread on this subject. Turns out his source for this claim was lying.

First the link, then my post destroying the credibility of his source.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072518284/

 

You choose to make a false statement.
You choose to deceive
You choose to obfuscate.
You choose to lie.

It's all you have.

 

. I can't see to find his signature on the DOI. His opinions are derivative.

They probably didn't know an all-knowing forum poster was going to object to their wording.

Actually, no. It looks like those issues were such integral part of life they didn't have to list it.

"scientific studies" mean squad in relation to the writings of the Founders at the time of the passage.

 

Absolutely not!

To accuse somebody of lying you quote the lie, and then you prove that it's a lie. There is no other way.

Your post is complete nonsense. For example: so what if a document is a translation. If you had ever translated anything (I have done that professionally) you would know that translations are done using the dialectic characteristics that the READER will understand.

For example, this nonsense.

Unbelievable! Anybody even moderately familiar with Church Cannon understands that it is NOT prohibited by the clergy to belong to the military. In fact, battalions often have a pastor in their ranks who goes around performing the last rites upon fighting men who are about to die. But they can't FIGHT (bear arms) in it. It most definitely refers to a military scenario.

Utter B.S.

 

Absolutely! So his belief that there was some God-given right to own firearms (due to which he thought it was absurd to include it in the Bill of Rights) was absolute B.S. But it IS one of the reasons why the proposal to include it was voted down.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. They didn't!

Linguistics is most definitely a science. In fact, linguistics is pretty much just as exact a science as is physics and chemistry. Just that linguistics is a much "younger" science that has been around (as a science) for barely a bit over half a century. But it is pretty much an exact science. It's composed of formulas, laws, scientific experiments.... everything that constitutes "science"

 

Chaplains have played a critical role on the battlefield throughout history. I remember being in Iraq in the early days of Desert Storm when all the hullabaloo about HMMWV's (High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles....HUM-V's) not having enough armor was going on. Armor add-ons slowly were making their way in country. When our Chaplain's HUM-V was moved up in priority for the modification, he had his vehicle placed last on the list, saying he had the "Armor of the Lord" protecting him. His courage and selflessness was an inspiration to us all.

 

It is a correct response. You failed to establish the existence of those alleged rights that you named.

That's why they succeeded in creating protections for the right to keep and bear arms.

They did adopt the proposal of the Anti-Federalists.

I'm not sure if "your claim that they didn't" is correct or not. I suspect not, but it doesn't really matter.

Such an interest is not required. It is enough that the right to keep and bear arms is protected.

I have routinely proven you wrong in those threads. It is silly to pretend that I do not know about them.

 

Great! If you believe they don't exist then there is no "right" to own guns that has been around for thousands of years, like Noah Webster believed. Who am I to reject an argument that supports my conclusion, even though I wouldn't make it myself. So I'll take it!

I don't think you're paying attention anymore. You make it TOO easy.

Ok. Now you're just being silly. I quoted the proposal of the anti-federalists from their dissent, and that is clearly NOT what the 2nd A says.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orth-exploring.607885/page-17#post-1074075925

So I guess this is now just a waste of time. I just wanted to point out that you challenging Noah Webster only makes my case stronger (see first paragraph here)... and you're not even aware.

Thanks for playing.

 

Nope. Study your history.

They didn't have to.

. Which matters only to other linguists.

 

social sciences such as political science, economics and the one he loves-linguistics are hardly the same as physics or chemistry

 

Comparing linguistics to Physics is like comparing oratory to mathematics. There's a world of difference between a subjectively "well turned phrase" and 2+2=4. The difference is even more pronounced in Physics, which deals with LAWS, not opinions and interpretations. V=f(lambda), E=IR, and such are not open to any interpretation.

 

Exactly - calling them "science" is silly.

 

I was the ranking student in political science in my class and we all knew it was not a real science -such as molecular biophysics or chemistry

 

Your source is BS. It’s supposedly a corpus of English literature. But some of it was originally in French. LOL. Your argument is akin to saying Tolstoy wrote English literature. SMH.

You are incorrect on the clergy as I pointed out in the quoted post. I never claimed clergy were prohibited from military service so your argument is strawman fallacy.

And you still have the other examples you can’t account for. There is the example I posted of bearing arms for highway robbery and for self defense. Your source lied.

Here is another case of bearing arms for self defense from your source that they omitted.

“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state , shall not be questioned .”

Golem, you are using a source that is outright lying about the Corpus they claim to be basing their data on. But I expect nothing less than dishonesty from your posts. Now we will be treated to some more….

 

Wrong again. Free people have had the right to keep and bear arms for thousands of years.

All I'm doing is proving you wrong over and over again.

No, I'm just proving you wrong again.

And I quoted the proposal the Anti-Federalists made at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and it clearly is what the Second Amendment says.