U.S. Fox News Elderly Philadelphia man running errands turns tables on would-be robbers, emptying his gun
Ok. So now you want to debate the meaning of "to keep and bear arms". THIS is the thread for that. You should read the OP. Something you haven't done in the other threads, so I doubt you'll do here. No! It assumes NO such thing. And it also doesn't assume that it ALWAYS includes it. I don't assume ANYTHING. The databases are there. And the point has NOTHING to do with whether they own them or not. It demonstrates (and you can repeat the experiment yourself because the tools are there) that if you take every single piece of writing from that era. Which means every book, newspaper article, letter.... even signs! EVERYTHING that anybody wrote... the idiom "keep and bear arms" ALWAYS referst to a military scenario unless a qualifier is used. Meaning that they EXPLICITLY state something like "keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the nation" (that's a "qualifier". Without this qualifier "keep and bear arms" ALWAYS refers to military use of firearms. And, as if that weren't enough, the mention of "a well regulated militia" underlines that this is what the founders meant.
Well... I started these threads, timidly at first, over 2 years ago thinking that I might have missed something. That somebody would provide facts that would rebut any of them, or find a flaw in my reading of history or linguistics... It's been more than 2 years and, the best anybody can do is the same as you do: try to change the subject. So now I'm confident that I was 100% right from the start. Quite satisfying! Like I said, I feel like I could take on Scalia, if his ghost were to appear in this forum one day. But that's what doing your research (as explained in my sig) allows you to enjoy. You should try it some day....
You do your research. I do mine. MY research is on the OP. Your rebuttal is ... nowhere to be found. My case is made. And at first I didn't imagine it would be this easy. I thought I'd be having to do more research and reading history and linguistics to respond to serious challenges by gun advocates and... nope... Not even a challenge! I have found and read more literature about the topic since then. I have it all bookmarked just in case I might need it. But my original research has held up perfectly on its own. NO challenges!
You are correct. It does. The right to bear one’s own arms was well established in the common law at the time of the founding. It was a well understood right.
Which we have done multiple times. Yet it is absolutely pointless when you simply dismiss anything that you do not like and pretend nobody has destroyed all of your spurious claims.
I was just at Lexington and Concord. My understanding of what "well regulated militia" meant to the Founders was private citizens that owned compatible arms of there time, and met together at time, drilled, practiced shooting and that was about it. Many citizens fit that description today and they don't wear uniforms, so don't try and pull that National Guard stuff.
Nobody has even TRIED. Changing topics is NOT considered a "rebuttal". "Rebutting" something that I haven't said is also not a rebuttal.
You would be wrong as demonstrated, among other things, by the discussions leading to the approval of the 2nd A documented here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-bear-arms.586083/page-58#post-1074365111
Here's more research on the topic: "Professor Dennis Baron, who joined the Linguistics brief in Heller a decade ago, searched the COFEA [the Corpus of Founding Era American English] for the term 'bear arms.' He also performed the same search on the Corpus of Early Modern English, which includes nearly 1.3 billion words from over 40,000 texts from 1475-1800. He found 'about 1,500 separate occurrences of "bear arms" in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.' From this evidence, Professor Baron concluded that the '[t]hese databases confirm that the natural meaning of "bear arms" in the framers’ day was military.' Likewise, Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant used Google Books to search for the phase 'bear arms' in sources published between 1760-1795. They found that in 67.4% of the sample size, 'bear arms' was used in its collective sense, whereas in 18.2% of the sample, the phase was used in an individual sense.... "Our search yielded roughly 200 results, which included every instance of arms near some form of the verb to keep. Again, we reviewed 50 of these documents as a sample. From this lot, we discarded irrelevant searches (such as “she kept her arms above her head”), quotations from the Constitution, and duplicates. In the remaining 18 documents in the sample, about half referred to keeping arms in the military context, roughly a quarter referred to a private sense of keeping arms, and another quarter or so were ambiguous references." https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2018/08/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment It sounds like there's more evidence that undermines your claim than supports it.
Keep reading: For example (From your source "They surveyed “115 texts,” including “books, pamphlets, broadsides and newspapers from the period between” 1776 and 1791 that used the phrase “bear arms.” Of those sources, 110 usages were “in clearly military context.” Of the five sources they located that used the phrase “bear arms” in a non-military context, only one was not “qualified by further language indicating a different meaning.” In other words, the references that did NOT refer to a non-military context needed a QUALIFIER (as mentioned in the OP). And the one I mentioned that did NOT use a qualifier was a sign outside a Church reading "Please do not bear arms inside the house of the Lord" Which is clearly sarcastic. YOUR article provides an example of those that DO mention "bear arms" in a different context but WITH a qualifier. For example, a minority report from the Pennsylvania constitutional ratifying convention in 1788 expressly distinguished between the “right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state or the United States” and the right to bear arms “for the purpose of killing game.” That the 2nd A DID refer to a military context is not only supported by these studies. But also by the historical record of the debates leading to the approval of the 2nd A which barely mentioned anything not related to a military scenario. And when they did (at the behest of some anti-federalists) it was scorned and voted DOWN, as demonstrated in the corresponding thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ And then by the several "versions" of the 2nd A that were discarded before they even went to the states, and are explained here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ I'm happy to see somebody finally did some research, though. Happy to see that somebody did some research, though.
That was my point. Those in the "militia" at Concord and Lexington were not military. They wore no uniforms and their weapons were private property.
here is where your argument fails. even if the purpose was military-there is absolutely no evidence that the founders saw it as negating the individual and private right. your argument labors under the delusion that a military purpose prevents any other reason
We do not change topics, you simply refuse to even listen to or consider anything that does not comply with your almost nonsensical beliefs. We have rebutted you. Some of us have even used the words of the people who wrote the Constitution and the laws at the time and immediately after. You simply reject anything that does not conform to your beliefs. To be honest, I gave up on you a long time ago. You have created multiple threads and each is basically saying the exact same thing ad nauseum, to be honest it is rather pathetic and said I think. But as an FYI, in case you have not realized it yet you are not going to gain converts to your delusional way of thinking.
The militia was the body politic. And this was something that was clearly understood by those who wrote the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers 29, 10 January 1788 They had just finished a revolution just 5 years before, where the majority of the fighters were militia. Not professional soldiers, citizen civilians who picked up their guns when called upon. I find it almost insanity that some try to claim that that was not the case and that the creators of the Constitution had anything in mind other than the importance of an armed population being a safeguard against tyranny. It honestly puzzles me how some want to strip away Constitutional rights simply because of their own paranoia and fanaticism.
The Founders definitely had militias, generally consisting of folks that ran over to the fireplace and took their muskets off the mantle when the alarm was raised. That was all long ago and far away. Today, our "citizen Soldiers" are called the National Guard. It takes two years to train an Apache pilot (when you start with a fully qualified helicopter pilot). It takes years to train folks to operate an M1 tank and mold them into a cohesive, effective fighting force. Even the Infantry requires extensive skills training and maintenance in these days of Javelin missiles, night vision, and communication systems like GCCS and such. Heller v US established that the "militia" wording in the 2d Amendment in no way restricted the right of a citizen to own or bear arms. I have guns and at my age I'm too old to go to war. (Been there,,, done that, though) My guns are for hobby purposes (reloading and sailing are the two most calming, relaxing hobbies you can have), friendly competition, and fun gunsmithing (I'm certified). I keep my guns in the same place I keep my insurance policies. They are all in the category "Better to have and not need, than to need and not have".
Sorry, I respect the National Guard, but they are trained and paid professional soldiers in uniform. Not the same thing. Regardless of how old you are, you can be a "gun behind every tree".....and that matters!
I agree... and disagree. Its a complex issue. An Apache can see you, even it the dark, from miles away and nail you before you even know its there. Artillery can destroy your whole town in moments. Small arms don't do much in that environment... although if our own military goes woke and it is THEM that we are fighting... they won't be able to rearm and refuel anywhere without getting shot.
At the same time. it takes infantry and person to person combat to finally subdue. Those in power know that. The 2nd has been a great deterrent to those that would rule over us in a type of dictatorship.
Young boys who were excellent at shooting squirrels did quite a number on professional British troops all the way from Lexington to Boston.
While its true that "unoccupied enemy territory is STILL enemy territory" and "no war was ever won from the air without using nukes"... I'd still want more than a rifle in my hand to face down a tank or an attack helicopter. Those systems can see you and kill you from distances where you won't even know they are there until you're dead.
