Wrong! This thread is about the idiom "bear arms" with no qualifiers. The way it is used in the 2nd A. I already said that Corpus Linguistics found 2% of instances of "arms" close (within four words) to any conjugation of the verb "to bear" made a reference to non-military use but required a qualifier. As in your CT example. As a matter of fact, the article I quoted provides multiple examples of this in multiple state constitutions (mostly) and other documents. The OP explained this right from the start, and I keep repeating it to you again and again. I hope this is the last time I have to explain it to you. It was the findings of Corpus Linguistics. If there are documents not included in the databases they are few, and not significant to this discussion. To believe that the framers intentionally wanted to give the Amendment some obscure meaning by not using the terms in the way people of the time would interpret it is beyond ludicrous. I see no difference. Unless you want to reference uses of the word "war" that are not related to this discussion. Like in "the war against drugs" or "the war against baldness" ... or something like that.
Different topic. That one is being addressed (as explained in the OP) in the thread "English 101" here. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/ This is "English 102". And it's exclusively about the idiom "keep and bear arms". That one is about the structure of the sentence. Coming soon: "English 103" which will address the idiom "A well regulated militia" and "History 101" dealing with the political environment at the time. And maybe more.... One particular subject at a time. You are, of course, welcome to open your own thread, if you think there are any other issues not addressed in any of these.
Let's look at the use of bear arms in Caesar Rodney's account of the rumor of an attack on Boston. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=117 Does this mean the farmer has a cart or a wagon that is unable to carry a weapon of war from one place to another? No, it means they are either physically incapable, or were morally objectionable to the use of the arm. Since their carts will filled with ammunition, we can assume they were not objecting to supporting the use of an arm by someone else. So from this context we can learn that bear arms simply means "use" arms. When the news of an attack was contradicted the militia dissolved. The officers of the militia were asked to stand ready to lend their assistance in the future, but they had no direct authority over the 50 thousand men who returned to their abodes along with their arms. This was a militia that was formed of a body of civilians that remained civilians throughout. If they did not possess arms in their abodes, or the ability to use those arms, the militia could not have formed. This strips the qualification of active participation in an organized group from the context of "bear arms." The officers headed the group, but it's the group that tells the officers what to do, and the group forms and dissolves whenever it wants to.
It seem absolutely clear what it means. Those who are not able to use arms to fight against those in the King's ships who were firing on the Town of Boston. In other words, to bear arms. You do know that that's a war scenario, right? No idea what it was you were trying to prove, but what you actually accomplished was to unequivocally confirm my point. That "bear arms" with no qualifiers referred to a military scenario.
I disagree that the use of bear arms is unqualified in the 2a, but before we can get to that discussion we need to confirm that it is qualified in the CT bill of rights. Do you agree that the CT bill of rights cannot mean military use in defense of himself?
Do you believe that the farmers were unable to use the arms for a military purpose, but were able to use them for some other purpose?
Americans are not Afganis weaned on goatsmilk living in caves in the rugged mountains of Afganistan, motivated by an extremist death cult called the Taliban who successfully turned back the Russian Army a few years prior False comparison.
The 'right' shall not be infringed. There is no implicit right beyond owning one musket for the purpose of militia patrols.
There are no exceptions. Not sure how well they will work in Missouri. But, whatever floats your boat. If you knew much about the military, you would not have mentioned battleships to start with.
Connecticut, the fifth state to sign the constitution, wrote in its state bill of rights: SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. How does an individual defend himself by going on a militia patrol? The purpose of a militia patrol is the defense of others who are not able to go on a militia patrol. The individual acting in a militia is actually agreeing to put his own defense at risk in order to defend the the citizens of a state as a whole. Does a soldier think they are defending themselves by conscripting in the military, travelling to a foreign country, and occupying a place that is likely to put themselves in harms way? I can't say that is universally the case. Many other states that signed the constitution implicitly deny the power of the state to keep a standing army in times of peace. This sets aside the militia as something that can be easily dissolved in times of peace, and quickly formed when the defense of the state is required. This then makes the purpose of the right the ability of citizens to form an armed militia, not specifically the ability for a militia to patrol.
We are talking about the constitution, not states constitution. I'm for removing 2a in US constitution, and allowing states to do whatever they want.
Golem should remind you that were are talking about the commonly understood meaning of the words bear arms contemporary to the time when the 2a was written. The CT bill of rights is contemporary to the 2a so we can look to it for context as to the meaning of the words as they were used at the time. Would CT have signed off on the Federal Constitution, and then refute the federal constitution in their own?
Of course they do when they assert it is about "hunting rifles" and all others should be banned. They seem to forget what Lexington and Concord was about.
So how about doing the same with speech and religion and right to a jury trial and the 4th amendment? Are you now a states rights aficionado?
Hmmm...the "founding fathers" of Lexington and Concord were creating a revolution, whereas the "founding fathers" of the U.S. Constitution, some eleven years later, were trying to prevent one. Makes a big difference regarding your perspective on the Second Amendment.
And if you weren't a dick, you wouldn't have made that comment. No one cares. And, by the way, when I was in the Navy, they had battleships. Sorry if I didn't keep up with things military according to your standards.
It has been nearly thirty years since they have had a commissioned battleship. Thirty years. My five year old great granddaughter keeps up better than that.
I see then, the right for citizens to bear arms was guaranteed in the Constitution so southerners could keep their slaves in line. Never heard of that theory before.
No I heard/read what you posted So how about doing the same with speech and religion and right to a jury trial and the 4th amendment? Are you now a states rights aficionado?
