Sorry, no. If that were true ANY mention of ARMS or helmets or spurs or any weapon would denote military scenario. Now you have completely reversed your argument to be any time anything possesses (even a tree) a weapon or implement used in combat or violence that thing is bearing arms. That completely invalidates the idea bearing arms relates only to military service. No, you introduced this subject to the other thread. It belongs there where YOU brought it up.
Oh! So you want to debate linguistic arguments from a 200 year ago view point, do you? Well, here's your chance! Read the OP in THIS thread and give it your best shot!
I pick the one in your example. It makes my case for me. And coming from a gun advocate, it's a definite endorsement of my point.
are you claiming you have comments or notes from the founders that support your position, let us know.
You need to pick a position. Either bear arms can mean inside or outside military context or just in military context. You’ve argued both sides now. Nah, trees can’t be in militias. But they can bear arms apparently. You are welcome to make the case this tree in the market was in a well regulated militia….
YES!!!! Read the OP! Not only from the founders, but from ANYBODY who wrote ANYTHING at the time the Bill of Rights were enacted: letters, articles, books, signs... They ALL support the case I made on the OP. The rare exceptions are listed.
nope, all believed that the federal government was not to have any say over what arms private citizens owned and the second amendment reiterated that belief
Of course they can! Look for yourself! This conversation has given me a very good insight into your general culture. I learned before that you are unfamiliar with any foreign language or how translating literature works. Then that you don't grasp what metaphors are. And now that you don't read much.
your argument has confirmed what I have always known about the gun banning movement. They understand that the second amendment is a major obstacle to their desire to ban lawful gun ownership in the USA so they spend uncounted hours trying to mutate and deny what the obvious intent of that amendment is. From the patently ridiculous claims that "well regulated" empowers the federal government to be able to ban or restrict what arms private citizens keep, bear, own and possess, to the equally absurd idea that the right only exists for those in active duty, the anti gun left continues to admit that the second amendment is a major barrier to their nefarious goals
LOL. I know just enough Spanish to generally be able to conduct business with the Latinos in the area. That’s it. But I understand more than you about translation of literature it seems. I know translating Russian literature into English doesn’t make it English literature and it doesn’t explain English culture. I am the only one here who understands metaphors. You incorrectly labeled metaphorical anthropomorphism as simile. Clearly you are the one who misunderstands metaphor. It’s interesting you didn’t read your own source, but I have. It’s interesting I quote from books while you post visual media. And then you say I’m the one not well read. The fact remains your source lied and your unsubstantiated opinions conflict with the SC.
Makes no difference what they "all" (binary thinking again) believed or not. This debate is about what they (the framers) approved to be included in a constitutional Amendment. What they didn't feel the need to include, is not in the Constitution, and never was.
Not sure I'm understanding what anything you wrote has to do with the tree "militia" in the post you quoted.
Sorry... no... Maybe if you ask Chat GPT. Careful, though. If you ask the wrong question (like you did this time) it will give you the wrong answer.
Of course! Start here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ Let me know when you're done, and I'll send the next.
I didn’t ask a question. LOL Chat GTP is like googling something and believing the first 5 hits. I’m not interested. Go ask a lit professor if translating Tolstoy into English turns his work into English literature. If you are using Chat GTP to guide your posting that explains why you are so often wrong and uninformed. Did it tell you the passage I quoted contained a simile? LOL
Of course you're not! It has been clear to all of us for a long time that research and facts are not your thing...
No, I don't need to read what you wrote and made up. I prefer this stuff https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers your opening post there is worthless because you pretend that the individual right to keep and bear and own arms only came from Heller. That permanently disqualifies your arguments from being taken seriously
Sure Golem. That’s why I know what’s in your source material and you don’t. Because I don’t research.
