Stevens says: If that was true why did the states not also apply the same conditions in their own constitutions? Why did connecticut, for example, outline a military objective in it's own constitution?
Do you believe that the 2a excludes Scalia's opinion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home? If it is exclusive of that opinion, then it would constitute a limitation of the right Scalia has outlined. So once again, it's you claiming that the 2a limits the right that Scalia proposes. If it doesn't limit such a right, then it does protect what he claims. Also, I've yet to see you confirm or deny that CT also refused to listen to linguists and made up their own pseudo-linguistics when framing their own constitution. Is CT's "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." also pseudo-linguistics? Is CT's constitution federally unconstitutional? Did CT ratify the Federal constitution with the intent to tie firearm ownership to service in the militia and simply forget to put that condition in their own constitution?
How about Delaware? Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Does bearing an arm for recreational use only apply if you're vacationing in a militia?
Soldier what in hell are you doing in swimming trunks! Civilian racks the slide on his side arm. I'm just here to use the base swimming pool, sir.
Golem is attempting to define the word "bear" to mean "use in a military scenario." He believes that any other interpretation requires the use of pseudo-linguistics. I'd like to know how he thinks Delaware intended people to bear arms recreationally.
This is the second thread. Ironic that the term "English" also refers to the people that made the second amendment necessary in the first place!
https://gun-control.procon.org/state-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-2/ A good comparison of all states use of the word bear in relation to arms and their dates of enactment.
If the 2A is 'only referring to a military scenario,' then its referring to the militia (aka the people, each of them individually) and its (their) ability to be prepared for armed defense by keeping and bearing arms. Maybe JFK can help you understand a bit better: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." -JFK, April 1960 And, as far as 'trans' not being able to 'bear arms'... they can just as much as I can. They are also the militia and that has never not been the case.
My position is nothing more nothing less than what you quoted: that the framers were not referring in the 2nd A to some individual right. to own firearms. They didn't affirm it, they didn't deny it. They simply didn't refer to it. Not in the 2nd A. My mind is very easy to read. Because I write what I think and I think what I write. Nothing more, nothing less. But you DO have to read what I write. All you needed to do was read the last paragraph of the OP. But you insist on commenting on posts that you haven't even READ.
And so by not excluding it, they protected it. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Also Kansas protected the right to bear arms for recreational use in 1859. How does one use an arm for military purposes recreationally?
Oh.. you can stop now. It's clear that you didn't read the OP before responding to it. Just admit it... or ignore it. Makes no difference.
Kansas protected the right to bear arms for recreational use in 1859. How does one use an arm for military purposes recreationally?
Not a militia. To a well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state. So unless you believe that a well regulated militia is still necessary to the security of a free state then, today, the 2nd A is as irrelevant as the 3rd A.
Exactly! And, as I said, and you now agree, it's not in the 2nd A. It's one of the things that were left up to the states. Another one sees the light....
I do. Given that in America, the state (is supposed to) = the people, the security of our state is ultimately dependent on the security of the people, and the most important and fundamental aspect of security is self defense. I think the militia could certainly be better regulated to that end (by which I refer to the common meaning of the word 'regulate' as it was in the 17-1800s) but there doesn't seem any interest or even any responsible agencies to have an interest in providing any standards of training or supply or even direction, so obviously they think we (the militia) are already well enough regulated by ourselves.
Play word games all you like, it will not change the underlying point. There is a significant portion of the American population willing to fight, to kill and to die before allowing the federal government to take their guns. The question is, are you willing to fight, to kill and to die to in an attempt to take those guns away?
Well... I disagree. But that is the right discussion to have (in the appropriate thread). That the 2nd A protects anything other than that is nonsense.
Why? How could it be as or more secure when someone else who is not with you is responsible for your security than when you are also responsible for your own security? If you want to put it into a military scenario- consider a community being attacked by a group of soldiers. Will that community fair better waiting for their protectors to arrive from some other location, or will they fair better defending themselves while waiting for more protection to arrive? This of course applies to disasters, lone criminals etc, but since we're looking at this from a military perspective, it still works the same.
Kansas protected the right to bear arms for recreational use in 1859. How does one use an arm for military purposes recreationally?
I'm not talking about Kansas. I'm talking about the 2nd A. Why is it so difficult for you to focus on what is being discussed?
