the machinations that gun banners go through in order to convince themselves and other ignorant folks, that the founders never intended the second to protect ownership fails on three fronts 1) as several top legal scholars have mentioned-even if Keep and bear was primarily a military concept (which makes sense since the founding of the new nation came from an ARMED REVOLUTION) , there is zero evidence that this term was designed to EXCLUDe private ownership or uses of arms 2) by definition if the worry was a standing army, a militia is not made up of professional soldiers but tradesmen, farmers, fishermen, trappers, educators etc who must have firearms available so when a militia is needed-for an emergency, they are armed and can immediately form that ad hoc military force 3) nothing in the constitution even hints that the founders intended the federal government to have any ability to interfere with private citizens owning, using, carrying etc small arms
Dude! You haven't EARNED a serious response. This thread DEMONSTRATES that "to keep and bear arms" in the Constitution refers to fighting in a military scenario. And you're tap-dancing in circles about who owns the weapons they use in this military scenario. It makes NO difference who owns the firearms, as it relates to the framing of the 2nd A. Argue the POINT! If you want to debate using the 2nd A to defend gun ownership, look at the threads about THAT topic. Here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ or here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ ... might be more appropriate, depending on what point you're trying to make. That is where you will see more clearly that the 2nd A makes NO reference to who owns the guns. Maybe you can use OTHER arguments to justify gun ownership, but NOT the 2nd A. That is simply not what it's intended to protect. In fact, in those threads you'll notice that the only attempt, during the debates leading to the 2nd A, to include gun ownership in the amendment was RIDICULED and tossed out.
And I demonstrated otherwise. You have yet to meaningfully respond to that demonstration, other than to restate your premise.
you constantly pretend that because (remember the founders just concluded a rebellion to create the new country where privately owned arms help throw off British rule) "keep and bear" mainly referenced the actions that the founders had just engaged in, you PRETEND that it doesn't include any other uses. which is why you were never able to address this seminal point by Don Kates https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3437&context=mlr look at page 213 where Kates notes that individual rights advocates can concede that 'keep and bear' mainly referenced military uses and that by "protecting the individual that the framers intended to protect the militia" To demonstrate that no individual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals - despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology. As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear. Such debate as the amendment received is sparse and inconclusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposition that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes.38
His schtick is that since "keep and bear" mainly (duh, the founders had just finished a armed rebellion, not a goose hunt or a target match) references MILITARY USES, he ASSUMES that they wanted to EXCLUDE Other uses which is patent bullshit as you well know. He has NEVER EVER backed that assumption up at all
I showed real linguistic studies. What you did was try to change the subject. But I guess that's the best we can expect from you: saying that you did it when you haven't even TRIED.
which AT BEST establish that Keep and bear was MAINLY a reference to military uses of firearms but does NOT EXCLUDE private uses of firearms and as I have noted, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that those who just fought a successful ARMED REBELLION rather than attending a turkey shoot or a target match, would obviously be contemplating mainly military uses. The burden is on people like you to establish the founders wanted to exclude ownership or use of arms by private citizens for any purpose other than being in an ad hoc military organization (militia)
So there you have it, boys and girls.... When a MAGA runs out of arguments to rebut the REAL argument, one typical tactic is to FABRICATE an argument that they think they can rebut. You might want to say "Come on! Give the guy a break. Maybe he just made a mistake". That's what I thought the FIRST time he made that argument. In fact, I thought the same the first four of five times he made this argument. Every time I patiently told him I have NEVER said that and explained that the fact that the 2nd A doesn't INCLUDE something doesn't mean that the intention of the framers was to EXCLUDE it. It simply means that it's not something they had in mind one way or the other. But he'll keep coming back to this no matter how many times I explain it because.... that's all he's got! Saying that because who owns the guns is not addressed in the 2nd A, that means they wanted to EXCLUDE it, is like saying that because they didn't mention abortion, the intention of the 2nd A was people owning guns, is like saying that the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the 14th A, that those who enacted the Amendment wanted to EXCLUDE a woman's right to privacy and liberty to choose. It's all they got, folks.... Anyway.. back to the topic: as proven in the OP "keep and bear arms" refers to fighting in a military scenario. The mention of a "well regulated militia" might have been a hint, in and of itself. But the idiom referred to NO other scenario in the 18th Century, as the studies mentioned in the OP demonstrate.
Of course it doesn't!!!!! See what I mean, boys and girls? This poster keeps coming back over and over to the same argument that HE made up (and falsely attributes to me). This is because he has NO real arguments.
It didn't just "mainly" reference military uses. It ONLY referenced military uses. It's what the idiom MEANT. You're still under the impression that the argument is that the framers actively wanted to exclude individual ownership. That is NOT the argument. They simply didn't feel a need to address it in a constitutional amendment. That's all. They DID feel a need to address protection of militias. As I have said many many times, if there are OTHER reasons to justify an unrestricted "right" to own guns... go for it! Open a thread and tell us about it. But the 2nd A does NOT protect that "right". It doesn't include it, it doesn't exclude it.... it simply doesn't address it.
As opposed to you, who can only address a sound criticism of your position with nothing more than a restatement of the position. It's all you got. And your prove it, every day.
You didn't understand my post? Allow me to dumb it down for you: What that poster claims is my position is NOT my position!
And I demonstrated otherwise. You have yet to meaningfully respond to that demonstration, other than to restate your premise.
what exactly is your obtuse point Golem. we all know that keep and bear includes OWN, USE store, Possess, buy, acquire, etc. You have spent hours of spam trying to convince-apparently only yourself-that somehow a government that cannot prevent us from KEEPING AND BEARING ARMS is allowed to ban OWNERSHIP. no one buys that insane bullshit. Not even you. so what is your point? Is it one of mental masturbation or are you really under the impression that you have come up with some winning argument that other gun banners-those who actually are in a position of power-can use to say-hey we will ban you from owning firearms, but you can "keep and bear them". it's all nonsense
completely wrong. utterly wrong. you cannot prove that. all you have is some OPINION by some leftwing linguists which you have to rely on because NOTHING THE FOUNDERS EVER WROTE EVEN REMOTELY SUPPORTS THAT STEAMING PILE OF BS.
My POINT in this thread is explained in the OP. My other points are explained in the OP of the other threads. After years of you coming back over and over to discuss this, you haven't even figured out what my point was. If it does, it's not because of the 2nd A. Who owns the firearms was not discussed. Barely even mentioned. And, when mentioned, it was ridiculed. But that is debated in the thread where it's relevant. The ONLY point in this thread is what is discussed in the OP. Which is that the idiom "to keep and bear arms" ALWAYS refers to a military scenario. Once this is clear, you can make arguments about OTHER subjects in the threads where they are appropriate. This is important because we are debating an obsolete law which had a purpose that is totally irrelevant today. But we first need to understand what that purpose was. It's IRRELEVANT whether or not the government can limit our right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia, because militias are irrelevant to the security of a free state. But before even going anywhere near that debate, we MUST understand what the Amendment means and what it was intended to do. If we are clear that "to keep and bear arms", in the minds of the framers (which is proven in the OP), ALWAYS referred to a military scenario, then that is only a first step.
I reject your discredited claims that keeping and bearing doesn't include ownership . as long as there are criminals, control freaks and Karens, the second amendment is incredibly valid and current.
What evidence is there that the Second Amendment was intended to address the use of guns for private purposes? The best argument that your side can come up with is that the RKBA is some kind of "pre-exisiting right" that already included a right to use guns for private purposes. However, that view is not supported by the linguistic evidence. Furthermore, I think the historian Saul Cornell has explained that the constitutional right to bear arms was legally distinct from the common law right of self defense at the time the Second Amendment was written. Regardless, any ambiguity (as Heller conceded) in what is meant by "to keep and bear arms" can be resolved by the preamble of the Second Amendment which concerns the necessity of a well-regulated militia. So the burden really is on people like you to prove that "to keep and bear arms" 100% unambigously means what you claim it to mean.
Sorry, no. In the days the Constitution was written, firearms were a normal fixture in many households - it was a frontier country bordering on hostile land. "Keep and bear" are as clear as can be. Keep and own are synonyms. Ask Mr Roget.
what evidence is that it was NOT? Cornell is a paid whore of the victim disarmament movement. the burden is on the gun banners who cannot explain where in the constitution was the federal government even hinted at having a power to regulate the small arms of PRIVATE CITZENS
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." - The people, not the militia, not the people in the militia - The right to keep and bear arms, not the right to serve in the militia or the right to keep and bear arms while in service with the militia. See? Easy? The USSC put this to bed a little while ago: "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/92/542 Appeal to false authority.. Ambiguities? Such as? True. It goes a long ways to tell us what sort of firearms I have the right to own and use. This was settled 2 decades ago.
The Second Amendment is neutral on the use of guns for private purposes. It's not the issue that the Founders were trying to address when they wrote it. Saul Cornell is a professional historian. You'd have a hard time finding someone who is as knowledgeable about US history as he is and who disagrees with his interpretation of the Second Amendment.
