Off topic. If you open a thread I might participate. Maybe... Though I don't think it's an idea that would carry much weight. Either in the Supreme Court, the legislative branch, or with the general public. So even though the discussion is the right one, it just not that interesting.
Not "off topic", its 'on your topic'. From your OP- "...the right to keep and bear arms [...] is in reference, not to hunting, not to sports.... not even to self defense" and "implied "arms" as used in a military scenario..." What is the meaningful difference between fighting for your life in self defense and fighting for your life in a military scenario? This distinction lays at the very heart of your entire argument that individual firearm ownership is not related to the security of a free state, and currently lays there merely as your entirely unexplained and unsupported opinion... are you really just gonna try to dodge it like that? C'mon Golem, your point needs your help!
So what you're saying is: A)'the 2A doesn't protect self defense' because B)'the 2A only applies to military scenarios, and self defense is not a military scenario' because A)'the 2A doesn't protect self defense' Thats textbook circular logic, man. You know that doesn't fly, right?
Maybe I can help you out... the only meaningful difference between fighting for ones life and fighting for ones country (in a military scenario) is the country. Sans further explanation from you, it would seem you believe we have the 'right' to fight for our country but not for ourselves. Is that about the gist of it?
You're taking about the 2a through your understanding of the common use of the word bear at the time the 2a was written. You would like to believe that bear means to use in a military scenario. Is that what Kansas believed the word meant when they used it in their constitution? Recreational military scenarios? http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4122 Why was the word not used in the description of the Boston massacre outlined here? People discharged muskets. Guns were fired. Arms were brandished. But not once did anyone on either side use an arm in a military scenario. Not even the British army. Arms were not borne, bared, or brought to bear. Not one person thought to bear an arm to the battle. Seems like it would be the perfect scenario to use such a commonly used and understood word. No hint of it though. There is a hint of it in the CT constitution. [SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.] That was written much more contemporary to the use of the word bear in the 2a. (In case you would argue that the meaning changed in some way by the time the Kansas law made an appearance.) In what way can a weapon be used in a military scenario for self defense? Does one hire a militia to walk around in public with them, ready a moment's notice to bear their weapons in case of danger?
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=266 Henry Knox, in arguing against a standing army, must have overlooked the fact that he didn't once mention arms used in a military scenario in his argument for the necessity of the greater body of the people to possess a competent knowledge of the military art.
Yes we don't trust the standing army because it could possibly become a tool for a runaway government. That is the reason the Founders put it in the Constitution. Why do you think those that want to cancel our history as well as our culture are so intent on doing away with our "individual right to bear arms"? It is obvious. Even when they do it incrementally.
It's perfectly understandable Heller resulted in a deep dive. Read it. Also rebellion or civil war. The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. You should probably stay out, then...[/quote] No we don't. We've had rioting throughout our cities all summer and you never said squat. The riot in the capitol was brought under control in a matter of hours. Fire arms were not involved. The only shots fired were by the police. The only person shot dead, was shot dead by the police. Order was restore by a civilian police force, not a military force. We are adequately guarded by regular military. You watch too make fake news fairy tales. No we don't. Citizens do have arrest powers, but they are seldom exercised. Citizens do have the right to effective lethal self-defense, but, this again is seldom exercised. Our violence is concentrated in our inner cities and in a gang problem, unrelated to what your are going on and one about. Actually it's the final draft and it's wording is just fine. You are a rather unusual combination of both greatly wordy and very much uninformed. How do you find yourself in such a state?
Zorro... I live in France where I took an oath as a new citizen that one of my responsibilities was to protect the nation if called upon. I did not nor was expected to head for the local DIY store and buy a gun. we have an army, navy, air force and various levels of police to do that for us. Those who fought in the 1789 Revolution needed guns. Most of the winners of that revolution had hunting knives and pitchforks against the royal forces' bayonets and bullets. The law you rely on is archaic. You can't rely on a law that mentions well organised militias when there aren't any such thing...or if there happens to be one in say Indiana, it only concerns a dozen people, and then say this apples to everyone in the whole country. In addition and speaking of making things up, why do you not register a militia and who "well organises" it? Who is responsible for organising the use of guns allowed in the amendment? Your adherence to this ancient law is akin to allowing everyone to have spears so they can hunt woolly mammoths. Further if you feel insecure why not increase your police in cities? Your cameras? Turn your residents into registered militias and then issue only them with guns instead of everyone who then often justify owning three or four guns? Why do you allow so many who are part of the problem, carry guns that are not part of the solution?
but as you are fully aware, your interpretation is incorrect, as you have no basis in law or grammar to support it. It's why your argument has lost every single time it's been tried in court.
Your sentence is not "circular logic". It's a tautology. Stating the same thing twice using different words. But that's your statement, not mine. Mine is as simple as this: the 2nd A doesn't mention or refer to or says anything whatsoever about self defense... period!
Exactly. And if you have evidence that contradict the OP, then quote it. Easy as that. But, of course, you're going to need to read the OP first. Lest you make some foolish statement.
That would be a subject to discuss on a different thread. The only purpose of this one was to show that the 2nd A relates to a military scenario. Since you agree with that, maybe you could open a thread. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on your statements there. I do not wish to derail my own thread.
Dude, just so you know, I have decided to only respond to serious debaters (unless I can think of something funny to say... comedy trumps commitment, you know...). Only those who are willing to address my arguments. Just clarifying, in case you wonder why I don't respond to you.
Just for the record, you're doubling down on your position that 'the 2A doesn't refer to self defense because the difference between a military scenario and self defense is that the 2A doesn't refer to self defense'... I hope you can at least see why this argument continually fails in courts...
I've addressed your arguments and directly refuted them. You are free to continue ignoring the fact that myself and about a dozen others have done this, but reality doesn't give a ****. You remain incorrect, and demonstrably so. We both know exactly why you won't respond to me. Your arguments have been defeated, as confirmed by every single time it's been tried in court, and you have no rebuttal for this other than "the judges are all wrong".
Sorry, but the 2nd amendment reads "...keep and bear ... " not just bear. Other uses of firearms while being kept was obviously anticipated.
It is on topic because a corrupt Government could try and force a violation of the 2nd. Of course there would be thousands if not millions of ex military to oppose them along with citizens that have trained with weapons. In fact, it is my belief the 2nd amendment is a real obstacle for either an attempted military takeover by another nation or our own government.
Oh "enlightened one" in our nation we are just so archaic! However, we understand human nature to be archaic, and the need for every "individual" to be prepared for the overthrow of an archaic elite force wanting to exert undo power over individuals. Japan knew better than to attempt an invasion of the U.S. because they knew "there would be a rifle behind every tree!" It also is a restraint against a government that wants to violate our Constitution. They try to do it incrementally all the time but they are aware what might happen when they over reach.
So here we go again. From the Connecticut State constitution, an example of a use of the word bear in relation to arms that is contemporary to 1788. [SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.] In what way can a weapon be used in a military scenario for self defense? Does one hire a militia to walk around in public with them, ready a moment's notice to bear their weapons in case of danger? Does one call in an air strike from the overhead drone?
"... because" nothing. It just doesn't refer to it. Just as it doesn't refer to the right to marry, or ... anything like that. There is no "because"... it just doesn't. Easy as that.
How does one provide for the security of a free state? Do you think the concern is with the freedom of the state to do things, or the freedom of the civilians within that state?
Except it actually does, unless you make a distinction between self defense and this vague 'military scenario' you refer to. Both self defense and military defense are the same basic violent conflict with different scales and goals, and 'the militia' is relevant to all violent conflict unless you can quantify how those scales and goals create a meaningful distinction between military defense and self defense. So far, you havn't even tried. You say they are not the same in how they are relevant to the militia, but can you explain how military defense and self defense are different and why one is relevant to the militia but the other is not?
