Again: that makes absolutely no difference to the argument on the OP. If you are so intent on changing the subject, open a thread.
Let this be a lesson to all the boys and girls in the audience: don't respond to a thread if you haven't read it. Especially when you have been previously alerted that doing that could make you look foolish. From the OP I assume this was a lack of focus on your part (I have another possible explanation in mind, but I can't state it without breaching forum rules). So I highlighted the relevant part ALREADY addressed on the OP. Looks like you kinda require a bit more high maintenance than most other posters. I only state this so you understand if I don't respond to your posts as often. It just takes too much effort that YOU should have made.
Pay your taxes, recycle, wear a mask, practice safe sex, and get your vaccination as soon as it's available to you.... That should be good for starters...
There are no qualifiers to the CT bill of rights. So I think you need to point out what exactly it is in that statement qualifies as a reference to "a military setting?" [SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.] Where is the reference to the military setting in which someone bears arms in defense of himself? If I am to be embarrassed, clearly you can point it out without the use of pseudo-linguistics. Does someone bear arms in defense of himself only if he's on a team of other people also bearing arms in defense of himself? Does the team also get to defend themselves or can they only defend him? Are we talking army of one here? Do I have to declare myself the Army of Me in order to bear an arm in defense of myself? Are you suggesting the authors were Boolean logicians? Did they mean AND as a Boolean AND? Can you only defend the state or yourself if you are simultaneously defending the other in the process? If you try and argue that, well, that certainly seems like pseudo-linguistics to me.
So you believe the 2a is about taxes, sex, and vaccinations? My. That seems like pseudo-linguistics to me. Not to mention the fact that if you have to bear arms into your sexual encounters something is clearly wrong with your selection process.
The statement "With no qualifiers, the phrase always referred to a military setting." makes absolutely no sense. It does not say it is for a military setting only. Defense of the state could certainly be interpreted that way as one possibility, but it cannot be absolutely stated that it is only in a military setting.. For example, in the Jan 6 riots, a civilian could have used arms to try to stop the riot while having absolutely nothing to do with the military. Similar things happen occasionally. You are trying to stretch your interpretations to fit your own final conclusions. By the way, I know of several churches where a member has been designated to carry a concealed weapon during the services. The names of the persons are not widely known. I just happen to personally know them.
Well, when I asked him about the security of the state, he said it was about safe sex. Clearly he thinks the 2a is about bearing arms into the bedroom.
It's not vague at all. It's all explained on the OP. I recommend reading it. Lot's of things are relevant to a militia: clothes, food, sleep ... the fact that they are not referred to in the 2nd A doesn't make them more or less important than... whatever importance you want to ascribe to it. They are simply not mentioned in the 2nd A. That's all. Nothing complicated at all.
It doesn't need to, as the OP explains. However, the founders went out of their way to make it abundantly clear that they were referring to a military scenario, so as to leave NO doubt what they meant. As explained here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/
Pay attention! I'm saying they are NOT there. I'm saying that the fact that they're not there doesn't make them less important. It just makes them not protected by the 2nd A.
And neither are other uses for arms. Since it specifically says "shall not be infringed", you have sealed the argument.
In no place does it say they were referring to a military scenario only and "shall not be infringed" seals the argument.
You think every criminal can be rehabilitated? I would guess very few of them fit that description. I'm OK with them owning guns after they have served their sentence.
And I'm saying that you're assertion that 'militia' necessarily denotes 'military situation' but not self defense, and/or that they are somehow even different from eachother, is merely an arbitrary decree by you that you are not supporting with any precedent or reason.
And as you’ve been shown in that thread, and this one, your interpretation has no basis in law or grammar. It’s why your argument has lost every single time it’s been tried in court. You’ve also been given the quotes from the actual founders who drafted the amendment showing your interpretation is incorrect.
It makes all the difference to your argument. From the OP "But the 2nd A didn't limit nor did it affirm an individual right to own weapons. It simply didn't address it. It only addressed the afore mentioned right to bear arms." You must remember "keep" as in possess or own. If you still want to keep with the militia only scenario, hunting , sport shooting, and even the occasional shooting of an unwanted home invader, would be good training for a member of a well regulated neighborhood militia.
I think we should be making a much stronger effort to rehabilitate violent criminals. The practice of just assigning a sentence to serve time is merely a punishment. Punishment can be an effective deterrent, but clearly often isn't as well, and surely we could devise a more scientific approach to determining how to rehabilitate some folks who are prone to violence and how to identify others who simply cannot be made able to comply with nonviolent coexistence in civil society and create an alternative for them. What we're doing now is just trying to turn all of society into a sort of lesser prison to release the un-rehabilitated back into. Thats certainly not the answer.
No! It's not my assertion. It's a fact proven by Corpus Linguistics as explained on the OP. I'm just the messenger.
But you’ve been shown that your op is incorrect. You are changing the meaning of the words and the amendment itself to make it say what you want it to say. It has no basis in law or grammar, which is why it’s lost every single time it’s been tried in court.
Keep is not and has never been a synonym of "own" . But, even if it were, it makes absolutely no difference to my point in this thread. They keep ("to retain in one's possession", "to have in control", "to take care of", "to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition"... pick whichever one you prefer... makes no difference) military armament for the purpose of serving in a well regulated militia. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keep
