I'll try one last time. EVERYTHING you say and that I quote above is accurate. But it has NOTHING to do with the topics of ANY of these threads or ANY of the points I am making or even with any remark I have made in any post in any of these threads. Now... you have one last chance to READ what the threads ARE about before responding. And if you have anything to say about what I DO argue, go for it! Otherwise, you must excuse me, but I have no time, patience or inclination to take you by the hand and explain again what I have already repeated dozens of times.
I have read and you have dismissed my argument with "golem ball" rules, because your point has and NEVER has had any legal bearing on the way the 2nd Amendment has been applied "functionally" in law. You have picked the same "academic" fight in three threads now; the vast majority of respondents disagree with your thesis. For the very good reason is it doesn't apply in OUR real world of American law and in fact it has never been or will be a point of actual legal contention..
I have quoted what you said. And acknowledged that it's factually true. But IRRELEVANT to any point whatsoever I have made. Because my point is NOT about legality. NOTHING I have said here is about legality or illegality of anything. It's about the History of the 2nd A in these threads, and about what the 2nd A actually MEANS in English in the others. And THAT is why what you said about legality, accurate as it may be (or not), is irrelevant to any point whatsoever I have made. So I'll leave you there. If you want to read the arguments I AM making, they are there. If you don't, you don't...
And there you go, "the History of the 2nd ... A ... is that AmeriCANs have, from the beginning, ALWAYS had the right, individually, to own colloquial firearms independent of militia membership or participation. That IS the History of Firearms in America. An example; as a 12 year old boy I, individually, with the only adult present being the salesman, bought my first rifle with Green Stamps. I have since bought and sold many firearms and have never been part of a "militia"; not counting the U.S. Military as a militia. I know you are trying to redefine history, but precedent is NOT on your side and neither are the writings of the Founding Fathers.
Absolutely! And, for that reason, the framers never thought it of any relevance to create a constitutional Amendment for that anymore than they thought it necessary to create an Amendment to affirm, confirm, grant or... in any way address... their right to own cattle, or a house, or a hat, or food, or ... any other type of private property. So they didn't. That's my whole point. See? It wasn't that terrible....
what had the founders done in the several years before the constitution was created? worn hats? raised cattle? grew crops? or threw off the English crown with the force of arms?
Except they DID include the individual right to own current, popular firearms IN the number two position IN “The Bill of Rights”, second only to Freedom of Speech and Religion. The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual, like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights/what-does-it-say By including the right of individuals to own firearms, in the Second of 10 Amendments in The Bill of Rights, the Founders underscored their firm belief that independence and freedom relied on the right of citizens to arm themselves against the threat of tyranny.
Scalia was dead when Bruen was decided, a decision that you surely must despise even more than Heller. Heller only ruled that the 2nd Amendment, as written, does provide an individual right, despite your continuous protestations to the contrary. Bruen affirmed that, and added to it, ruling that right extends to outside of one's home as well, meaning that concealed carry is a RIGHT that applies to all adults who have not had their rights restricted due to their own actions, like committing and getting convicted of a felony. Just because YOU don't like the decision, doesn't make it legislating from the Bench. A 2nd Grade student of average reading comprehension can read and clearly understand what the 2A says, and what it means. I don't think we should have required these decisions to enable us to exercise our birthrights, but that we do only strengthens them to a degree that no doubt leaves you sleepless at night. The horror you must feel wondering if the guy in front of you in line at the grocery store is packing makes me smile. And I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to take my rights from me by playing sematic games with 200-year-old words that have shifted slightly in their meaning from when written. As one critical example, 'well regulated' did not mean regulated like we regulate say a car, with registrations on who owns it, license plates and serial numbers that provide the government with an instant check of who owns and is likely in said car. Can you imagine a similar requirement that we wear a license plate on our bodies?!? It would be laughed out of Congress, at least I used to think so... today not as much. Rather, it meant in well working order, so firearm owners who show up for militia duty (and all able-bodied men in the United States between 17 and 45 years of age are even today members of the United States militia, per existing Federal Law) better make sure their weapons are cleaned and oiled. This fact only further destroys your arguments as regards semantics, as it's hard to argue that a militia member doesn't have a right to own a firearm, even if that was a requirement! As you yourself said, the ownership of a firearm was no more controversial back then than was the ownership of a shoe, but our founders saw people like you coming, who would take that uncontroversial right away, like the UK tried to do to the colonial insurrectionists and traitors (never forget this country was FOUNDED by traitors to the English Crown!). It was the tyranny of the Crown's government by trying to take away people's firearms that caused them to put the Amendment in there in the first place, as it was one of the fundamental reasons we rebelled to begin with! Why do you hate freedom so much??
Every single word you say about the topic of the birthright of gun ownership you have repeated far more than dozens of times, in far more than dozens of threads. It seems to be just about the only topic you have an interest in discussing or debating at all, though I haven't stalked you around the forum to enable me to say that with absolute certainty. But you keep setting them up, and we keep knocking them down. It really is quite repetitive, and quite stale, especially in the light of what SCOTUS has ruled, your goal has never been farther away than it is right now. As I type these words, cases are moving their way through a number of different Courts, in a number of different Circuits, including NY, NJ, and CA's attempts to end-run the Bruen decision (which is going quite poorly for them thus far, as was intended by the 'text and history' test the Bruen requires), and once those do get ruled on, your wet dream will be nothing but a heap of ashes on your floor, smoking and smoldering, but with no Phoenix therein to rise again and try to challenge the rights of men ever again. Assault weapon restrictions... gone. Magazine size restrictions... gone. Possibly even the GCA of 1934 and the inappropriately named GOPA of 1986... gone? We can hope. I hope SCOTUS will find individual politicians to be in Contempt of Court based on their attempt to get around Bruen, but they may get off with just a warning. Once.
there is precedent for making such officials liable under 42 USC 1983 (state officials engaging in a deprivation of constitutional rights under the color of state laws) a federal constitutional tort as recognized in Bivens vs six Unknown Named Agents (1971)
Ok. So now you change your narrative. If you're going to argue that, you will have to address the OPs of the different threads in which I have provided links, quotes, studies from historians (and linguists, in the others) that PROVE that that was not the intention of the 2nd A. Especially this one that shows that an individual right to own firearms was NOT in the minds of those who wrote and passed the 2nd A as we see it today. If you have an argument to counter that, go for it. If you don't, or you're going to claim you already made it (which you haven't... as demonstrated by the fact that I agreed with everything else), don't bother.
I'm talking about Heller, which was the actual legislation. In any case, it's NOT what the thread is about. And that is disproven by these threads. If you have any arguments to counter mine on the OP, do let us know. If they had that or not, it did not make it into the 2nd A as written and passed. In fact, several versions (somebody said three) were proposed that would have addressed an individual right to own guns, but they didn't pass. They generated the sarcastic comment by Noah Webster that I quoted
So if you're going to respond to those words, it's about time you start ADDRESSING them. Instead of counting how many times I have used them. The fact that you have read them so many times (and even counted them), and not once addressed them is further indication that you have no rebuttal.
You must excuse us, but we have no time, nor patience, nor inclination to take you by the hand and disprove again what we have already disproven dozens of times. ^^^ This claim is false, and you knew it was false when you made it.
Only in your mind. Nowhere else, not even the minds, including brilliant legal scholars, who are philosophically on your side. It's just your own delusions that amount to nothing, except for fodder for mental masturbation in threads like this. Only in the depths of your imagination. On this entire topic, you are delusional in your thinking, dreaming, hoping, and ultimately, your predictions. The game is over and you're still arguing that the ref blew a call that if that had not happened, your team would have won. But, whether the call was blown or not is not relevant. It happened, it was not reversed, and once the clock reads 00:00, there's no going back. Your mentality on this topic is the exact same as those who think if just the right ruling cam happen in a Court, Trump would be put back in the Oval office, but under no circumstances will that happen, unless he wins the upcoming election, or one in the future. And you don't even have that longshot hope. You've lost. It's over. It's time you accepted that, and understand that if you are standing near me (or countless millions of other Citizens), you'll be near an armed person.
I don't see an "in charge" label on your avatar. What I have to do is comment as "I" deem appropriate. You want to dwell on some obscure historical quote you've found, that has never been applied in practice in These United States. Not even when the Founders were alive and would most certainly have intervened had they thought THEIR Constitution was being misinterpreted. People write a lot of things, one of my favorite quotes is, "the last thing the world needs is another book". But, that something is written down doesn't make it correct or even useful. And this idea of yours, that the Founders didn't write the right of INDIVIDUAL AmeriCANs to own and use firearms, in current use, into THEIR Constitution is absurd. The "Shot Heard Round the World" that started the Revolution was fired in defense of possession of firearms. The Founders fought a war for liberty and Government by the, INDIVIDUALS, of The United States. They knew that the lynch pin to keeping that liberty and Government was the ownership of firearms by every American that wanted one. And THAT INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own firearms is the LEGAL paradigm "WE" as a nation have lived by for 234 years. Academically your quote is interesting, but our long HISTORY of gun law makes it just that a, foolish, academic diversion.
What has been resoundingly proven "by these threads" is this ill conceived idea of yours is ... WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
Golem's argument is that if the founders didn't say at least 100 times that the second was about individual rights, they must not have wanted that right to be protected. He does this because he cannot find a single shred of evidence that the founders thought the new federal government should be able to limit what arms private citizens, acting in a private capacity could use, own, buy, sell carry etc
And the fact that... let's not even mention that you couldn't debunk them..... you couldn't even ADDRESS them. That fact most definitely makes my case.
Not only as you deem appropriate, but as your knowledge about the topic allows you. And it's obvious that that ran out a long time ago. So... thanks for playing...
My psychobabble therapist sister would likely suggest he has a deficit of attention disorder and self-esteem issues IRL people ignore him so he comes here for attention; his negative self-worth drives him to seek negative, rather than positive attention. Sad, but probably true.
