And eat all your vegetables, brush your teeth, and exercise. If someone should become a threat to your health, a gun is more effective than a dictionary.
The article claims neither fact nor proof in its findings, and I imagine the author would not appreciate you ascribing those attributes to it, considering how many times the author repeated something to the effect of 'this is not conclusive.' Which I commend the author for, because there's some big problems with it. -Neither your OP nor the article cited (nor any of legal judgements cited, for that matter) make any attempt to explain how a 'military scenario' is different from self defense. They all just work off the assumption from the get-go that they are different, because 'bearing arms is historically most often cited in a military context.' Though, as the author notes in all cases except THIS case, that the common usage of qualifiers can be used to determine a likely meaning when those qualifiers are absent, a preponderance of qualifiers being added to the term 'bear arms' to denote military usage would suggest that the term needs those qualifiers or would not be understood to have a military meaning... I wonder why this wasn't addressed... -Neither does your OP nor the article attempt to explore why 'bearing arms is historically most often cited in a military context'... perhaps because its pretty obvious as to why. Its because much of the examples of such verbiage (cited in the data accompanying the article) come from monarchal and imperial societies' Codes of Laws that were from rulers and states that were only concerned with the function of their militaries, which means the majority of those citations are somewhat less applicable to the Code of Laws our Founders were trying to draft for a revolutionary democratic republic, of, by and for the people, a very different sort of government than the relatively autocratic and militaristic regimes the author uses as a linguistic comparison. -Furthermore, the author of your cited article does not specify (in any way that is apparent) which data was 'interpreted' by the author to be the 'collective' sense of 'bearing arms' and which data was interpreted to be the 'distributive' sense of 'bearing arms.' Which is not only odd because it lays pretty foundationally at the argument the article is presenting, but also odd because the other sets of data are far more clearly defined as to how the author interpreted them. Given how many of the examples I read that looked to me to be in the distributive sense, I suspect the author may have applied a fair amount of bias to the 'interpretation' of the data. But, like I said, its not sufficiently noted to tell for sure. -Its also worth questioning whether the Founders were able to do anywhere near the amount of 'data mining' as the author of the article to determine whether their wording lined up with the 'common usage' of hundreds of (then likely not easily accessible) documents from all over the world that the author can now access digitally to hold as examples of what the founders may have meant. To put another way, this depth of linguistic analysis may not have even been possible back then, and trying to use it today to demonstrate intent 200 years ago, while certainly useful, is still a lot of guesswork. The author has hundreds of works to reference. The Founders may have only had access to dozens of those hundreds of works from which they built their 'common meaning.' All in all, I think for every sound point the article makes, it either fails to make or ignores another. I give it a C+
Ah good. We have established in the most round about and strained fashion that within the CT bill of rights, the use of the word bear in relation to arms does not mean use in a military setting. This use was contemporary to its use in the 2a. This brings us back to the security of a free state. What is a free state? Does the free apply to the state, or the citizens of that state? Is it a condition of the state, or a condition of the individuals in the state?
The Second Amendment reads: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. " The first two phrases (a noun phrase and a present participle phrase, absurdly separated by a comma) together constitute an absolute phrase, which qualifies the following independent clause. Another way of writing the phrase is to say, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is as clear as day; the preceding absolute phrase is simply providing a reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It would have been best if the absolute phrase had not been included. Unfortunately, as we have become dumber and more illiterate as a society, absolute phrases are rather esoteric, which causes these hackneyed discussions. I think our forefathers were too optimistic, thinking there would be a collective mastery of the English language. Alas, they were wrong.
I have NO idea what you're talking about. Corpus Linguistics is clear. If you have anything to counter the facts on the OP, quote them. They don't attempt to explain how military scenario is different from mounting bikes either. So???? Defending your house from robbers is not a military scenario. It would be idiotic of the author to explain this. Huh? Why would they explore that? The purpose is to know what the 2nd A would mean in the mind of any average American with an average education (including the framers). Please explain why you are even mentioning that. None was interpreted in any way whatsoever. If they were talking about military, it was military. "They soldiers bore arms against the king" I don't think you're understanding this whole topic. The founders don't need to research what they themselves meant by what they wrote. It was their words. They KNEW what they meant by them. Everybody at the time understood what "bear arms" meant. We're the ones who need to explain what was in their minds, and why. Not them. As historian Garry Wills explained it "One does not bear arms against a rabbit". Corpus linguistics demonstrate that if somebody interpreted the 2nd A to mean anything other than fight in a war, they would look at them like either they were joking or a weirdo. Nobody used it for anything else. Nobody! I'm not sure you understood that Corpus linguisics is composed of two databases that compile every single document written at the time. And, as I said on the OP, every single time it was used without additional qualifiers, the idiom "bear arms" referred to the military. So there is simply no room for interpretation. Either the founders were joking (doubtful), or they were talking about a military scenario. BTW, stay tuned. I'll be preparing a new series starting with "History 101" where I show (rather.... historians show) that the last thing on the framer's mind was some "right" to own weapons. That will be coming. But that, in addition to this thread, and the one were I demonstrate that the 2nd A refers exclusively to a well regulated militia (a.k.a. English 101), leave no doubt about the framer's intentions. There is room for English 103. But I think History 101 is enough to close the circle. Watch this space...
We have established exactly the opposite. That with no qualifiers, the idiom "bear arms", at the time the 2nd A was written, could not possibly mean anything other than the military service to defend the security of a free state. Just .... saying .... the opposite, doesn't make your fantasy real.
Do we really need to re-establish that people in Connecticut knew what it meant in their own bill of rights? Was CT talking about using the military for self defence?
That the 2nd Amendment is about hunting is a absurd fallacy presented by the left. It is not an argument of 2nd Amenders. And bearing arms is NOT limited to military actions, yes it DOES apply to self-defense and self-protection when the government cannot protect you when I bear arms against an attacker against me and my home and my family. This is 2nd Amendment And the SCOTUS has CLEARLY stated that right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and has nothing to do with the military so don't know why you are trying to argue otherwise now.
I agree. However, I think the absolute clause ("prefatory", Scalia called it) was included because they wanted to reassure the people that if the states neglected the militias, the federal government would not. They considered the standing army ineffective. That's why the militias were necessary, so long as they were well regulated.. But also that clauses 15 and 16 in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, did not mean that the federal government would just take over control of the militias from the States that did regulate them.
The people in CT understood that they needed to add the qualifier "for personal protection" (or something... I don't remember the exact words), because if they didn't, the article would apply exclusively to a military scenario. That's what the term "qualifier" means. There are 2% of instances in Corpus Linguistics in which "bear" and "arms" are used in a non-military sense. ALL of them (like the one you quoted) needed such a specific qualifier to indicate that they were including non-military use. The 2nd A includes NO such qualifier. I've explained this to you like... four times. And it's explained on the OP. It can't be that difficult to understand.
I have never heard anybody on the left make that argument. The "left"... well... actually, gun control advocates (I don't know if they are all "left")... have always rejected that interpretation. As for the rest.... it's was already debunked in the OP.
Good good. So once again what we've established is that there are qualified conditions in which "bear arms" cannot possibly mean for a military purpose. We in no way have established that there are no situations in which it was commonly understood without qualification. The argument here, and the facts we both have agreed to is that there are situations in which bear arms does not mean for a military purpose. With that we can continue. What is a free state? Does the word "free" qualify the state, or does "free" qualify the citizens that form that state? Is it a condition of the state, or a condition of the individuals in the state? Can we, for example, secure a free state by imprisoning all its citizens? In that way the state would be free to act as it wishes.
Oh my. Is there some confusion that the word arms in the CT bill of rights might mean appendages? I had no idea you were confused by this. Arms in the CT bill of rights means weapons. SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. You were quick to point out that the reflexive pronoun, himself, cannot be ignored. Now that you know arms means weapons, do you believe that right to bear arms in self defense is qualified in some sort of military context? Does a citizen have the right to use military force in defense of himself? Or can we both agree that bear arms in this context is devoid of any military association?
That was only a partial reason. The other reason was the north gave the south that amendment so that the south would ratify the constitution, because they had militias on slave patrols, and every male 18 and older was compelled to be a member. With that amendment, Virginia ratified it. (source, "The Hidden History of Guns and the Second Amendment" --Thom Hartmann) As for 'tyrannical government', i'd like to see any citizen fight a government that has tanks, F-22s, howitzers, 50 cal. machine guns, RPGs, nukes, submarines, battleships, two million men and women strong, etc. Yeah, what a joke. In short, both reasons for 2a are moot.
Republicans argue all day long about strict textualism, 'originalism' blah blah blah. But the ONLY ruling keeping 2a from falling apart is Heller, but heller is NOT strict textualism, it is NOT 'originalism'. If you just stick to the text, it's referring to states militias, in a military context, ("bear arms" and 'militia" are consistently military terms) which are now the national guard, each under the direction of the governor of each state. The hypocrisy, of course, is lost on republicans.
They would be fighting against fifty to one odds and fighting the people who manufactured and will supply all that fancy equipment. By the way. The navy does not have any operational battleships.
That's interesting. Here's the order the states signed the constitution. Delaware: December 7, 1787 Pennsylvania: December 12, 1787 New Jersey: December 18, 1787 Georgia: January 2, 1788 Connecticut: January 9, 1788 Massachusetts: February 6, 1788 Maryland: April 28, 1788 South Carolina: May 23, 1788 New Hampshire: June 21, 1788 (With this state’s ratification, the Constitution became legal.) Virginia: June 25, 1788 New York: July 26, 1788 North Carolina: November 21, 1789 Rhode Island: May 29, 1790 Here's the states with a right to bear arms written into their own state constitutions. https://gun-control.procon.org/state-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms-2/ Virginia ratified the constitution after it was legal, but all the northern states save for New Jersey had prior rights to bear arms in their own charters and constitutions. Were militias roaming Boston on slave patrols? Were militias patrolling Philadelphia for slaves?
States have protected the right to bear arms in their own constitutions, as I just pointed out to you in my previous post. Perhaps look to them for original context.
Of course. My solution would be for government to hire the ex cons. Businesses won't hire them so they go back to crime. Give them a job. Government is already corrupt. A few more criminals won't really matter.
The only confusion is yours. Not understanding that this thread is about the text in the 2nd A, not the CT constitution. With no qualifiers and especially when preceded by "bear" it always means weapons of war. With qualifiers it means.... whatever the qualifier indicates it means. As in The highlighted part is what is known as a "qualifier". It modifies the meaning of the word group "bear arms" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualifier
This thread is about an understanding of the words bear arms contemporary to the time the 2a was written. Is the CT bill of rights not contemporary to that time? "Always" has not been established. We have also not established that it means "weapons of war" though I'm happy to establish that. Previously you were arguing that it means weapons used for military purposes. I propose that the CT constitution's use of bear arms is exclusive of a military use. You say that's because bear arms is qualified by the use of himself. We can still work with that as long as you stop vacillating on the point that the CT constitution's use of bear arms is qualified as such. If we can agree on that then we can continue.
It seems to me that all your "research" failed to explain to you the fundamentals of English. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." is a subordinate clause of the sentence that is the 2nd Amendment. A subordinate clause cannot stand alone, as the main clause of a sentence can. A subordinate clause is like window dressing. It is pretty, perhaps relevant, but it cannot stand alone. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the main clause, and a complete sentence in its own right.
