I have argued and shown evidence from linguists and historians that it does not. And you haven't even attempted to address my arguments. Therefore, as far as you are concerned, they stand as the ONLY rational arguments in the thread. And from this time forward, I have no interest in responding to any post that does not address my arguments.
simple logic says to me, the founders feared a large standing army, not to mention the cost, so they concentrated on a militia, this also is apparent, many things were not codified in our constitution and having a firearm for personal protection seems to be one of them and gun supporters twist and turn the bad language ever since
Nothing clearer to any moderately intelligent person. What is obviously not clear to you is WHAT this "right" is that shall not be infringed. So.... again you notice you run out of arguments in one thread and want to change the subject... AGAIN. Which leads us back to the Linguistics threads. In which you changed the subject to THIS thread's when you ran out of arguments there. If you have an argument to make, make it in the appropriate thread and stop jumping back and forth.
to keep and bear arms. I don't see ANYONE supporting your incredibly wrong definitions. keep and bear pretty much encompasses ownership, carrying , training etc
how do you keep and bear without owning. here is why you constantly fail and it is as Kate (Yale Law school, among other things) notes-you claim that because the founders wanted one thing-you pretend they didn't want people to be able to do the other things that facilitate keeping and bearing. Its a worthless attempt by you to try to limit the restrictions of the second on the federal government
You cannot have a right to possess or use something you do not own This has been brought up several times. He ignores it. He's trolling.
Nobody except the leading Linguists and Philologists in the country. But, of course, what would they know about language, right?
Huh? Our servicemen, especially in war zones, do it almost every day. Unless you actually believe that they OWN the firearms the government issues. Don't you let anybody ever convince you that there is no such thing as a dumb question because... you just proved them wrong.
leading people meaning those in an irrelevant field who buy into the gun grabber mantra. We have the people who WROTE the constitution and the second amendment supporting our views. You have people who have no relevance whatsoever and are hardly unified. FIND ME ONE FOUNDER who supports your view
they usually cannot keep them-that's why the soldiers who were murdered in Fort Hood were not armed. apples to cinderblock comparison between private citizens and their own arms versus those in public employ with issued arms. Nice try but another COMPLETE FAIL. those soldiers have NO RIGHT to KBA-they are issued weapons by superiors and told when and where they can use them. That is NOT A RIGHT
He knows the RKBA as protected by the 2nd has nothing to do with soldiers and issue weapons. He's trying to avoid addressing what you said, because he knows he cannot. Trolls are like that.
they realize there are lots of low information individuals who might buy the bullshit they spew. It's like restrictionists who pretend that if the government had the proper power limit those with clean records to 10 round magazines, the second amendment is not implicated.
the last thing left wing wanna be elites and masters want is a well educated and independent public. Those who want to be parents need lots of perpetual children to rule
There you have it folks: linguists are irrelevant in a debate about linguistics. Nihilism is the last resort of people who have no arguments. So I will waste no more time on yours
So there you have it. The nihilist position is that those who were murdered in Fort Hood died because they didn't own the guns the government issues them. In case anybody takes nihilism seriously.... I don't...
This isn’t a school yard playground; you can pout and pitch a fit but, its not your ball to take home. It should be obvious, but, I don’t give a **** if you respond to my posts or not. I have responded to your argument, but I’m done dignifying that horseshit further.
this is not a debate about linguistics. It is about the intent of the founders linguists are irrelevant when those who wrote the questioned words have clearly expressed in other documents and evidence what they intended
your posts seem incapable of understanding that soldiers have no personal right to keep and bear arms while on duty
First of all... you know I'm on your side. But that statement about Soldiers having the right to keep arms is incorrect. I had a personal firearm in the Army. The rules about it varied from post to post, depending upon the Commander. In some places I could keep it (locked up) at home. In other places I had to keep it in the unit Arms Room. But there was never a place where my 2d Amendment rights were denied. Heck, in my whole Army career I never had any right enjoyed by a civilian, denied to me just because I was a Soldier.
so when you are on active duty, your CO couldn't interfere with you having weapons? I will defer to the fact that you served but I checked with my nephew who currently is a LtC in the Special forces and he noted it depends but there is no absolute right for those on active duty. But putting that aside, Golem's attempt to intermix those in federal employ versus the rights of PRIVATE CITIZENS acting in a private capacity are very different. Lots of constitutional rights of those in the service are abrogated. Soldiers are told what to wear, who to associate and where to go.
I never ran into a CO that wanted to take away any rights, including the 2d amendment. What you wear is not a "right" listed in the Bill of Rights. The military is no different than civilians in that regard. I never ran into a law firm that would allow its attorneys to show up at the office in Bermuda shorts and flip flops. When I worked at Lockheed, I would have been summarily dismissed if I wore tattered jeans and torn t-shirts. As to who to associate with.. same rules in the military and in the civilian world. Let me offer a personal experience: Soon after I left the military I was in my office one noontime and a secretary came to tell me that a friend of the boss's had stopped by wanting to take the boss out to lunch. Well, the boss was out so I offered to take the guy to lunch. We had a fun and interesting time. The next day I was told this guy had just gotten out of jail. He had worked for a major defense contractor and was caught up in an FBI sting operation called "Ill Wind". To make a long story short, I was told not to see him again. It would NOT be career enhancing. I never had anyone in the military tell me where I could or could not go. I guess there were places that were "Off Limits" but I never ran into one except in the movies. Wait, now that I think about it... In the early 1980's, I was stationed in Germany. LTG Julius Becton, the black Commander of III Corps, heard about German gasthauses (pubs) refusing to serve black American Soldiers. He woke up Manfred Rommel (Erwin's son) who was the Mayor of Nuremberg. In civvies, he went bar hopping with the Mayor. They placed a lot of joints "Off Limits" for refusing to serve the black General. (I loved that guy.) Neither of them were recognized. But aside from that, I never ran into anyplace that the Army didn't want me to go. I couldn't pass over to East Germany without permission... but neither could civilians, without permission, from what I understood. So its not a matter of "absolute rights", going to court, or making it a big deal. Its just that nothing ever happened that would MAKE IT a big deal. I've never heard anyone screaming about "absolute rights" that wasn't just a noisy malcontent... well... until Biden started actually violating the rights of so many Americans today.
