THIS thread is. But you keep changing the subject. What "keep and bear arms" means is a topic about linguistics. I just can't keep moving your posts back and forth every time you change the topic. Especially because you do this to try to hide the fact that you have provided no arguments in EITHER topic.
WTF? YOU were the one who brought up Fort Hood. Ok. It should be pretty obvious by the fact that you just keep making up excuses to avoid making real arguments related to the OP, that this topic is way over your head. And that you have now realized this fact. So I'll just let you be. Do let us know if you ever decide to research the topics and finally make a meaningful contribution... or, at least, post something... ANYTHING ... that IS related to my arguments. In the mean time, I'll wait for posts by posters who CAN make meaningful contributions. Thanks for playing...
Oh, since you can't take your ball and go home, I think you should hold your breath until you turn blue.
So you think that if I hold by breath waiting for posters who will make meaningful contributions I'll turn blue? Either this is what the above means or it means you wish I die. Assuming the former (I tend to be an optimist ), it would appear you have a low opinion of posters who believe the 2nd A addresses a right to own firearms. I think there is at least some possibility that somebody might come along and provide a new insight instead of refusing to address the points on the OPs. But we'll see....
Not posts have addressed your hypothesis for quite awhile because it's irrelevant and contrived. I rest my case.
you want to debate an issue that is irrelevant to the interpretation of the second amendment because if you stick to what matters-the obvious intent of those who enacted the Second Amendment, you know you have no grounds to stand on. you found a few linguists who tried to twist "keep and bear" to being only military terms and then extrapolated that the founders never intended a individual right which not only is speculative nonsense, it runs completely against numerous comments of the founders. And this is what really destroys your silly stilted specious claims: ( I have cited this several times and you continually run away from it) Advocates of the individual right position, on the other hand, rely on the fact that the natural reading of the amendment's phrase "right of the people" is that it creates not a state right, but one which individuals can assert. This is how the identically phrased34 first and fourth amendments are interpreted.35 Furthermore, the individual right advocate may accept the state's right theory and simply assert that, even though one of the amendment's purposes may have been to protect the states' militias,36 another was to protect the individual right to arms. Indeed, the evidence suggests it was precisely by pro- tecting the individual that the Framers intended to protect the mili- tia.37 In thus yielding to the primary strength of the opposing argument, individual right advocates define the burden that the ex- clusively state's right theorist must bear. To demonstrate that no in- dividual 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 incon- clusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposi- tion that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes.38
every day, his argument has yet another limb chopped off. all it can do is hope we will stain our shoes in the puddles of blood
Great! I could not have received a better endorsement than a gun advocate proclaiming that the historian's arguments (straight out of their Amicus Brief) cannot be rebutted. Thanks!
Whether it's relevant or not to the interpretation of the 2nd A is a completely different matter. What I am demonstrating is very simple and I have explained it multiple time: that the 2nd A does not grants, affirm, confer, ... or in any way address an individual "right" to own firearms. "Legal interpretations" range from those based on history, to those based in wishful thinking... and everything in between. So I'm not interested. But I HAVE demonstrated that history supports the position I explained. Which, BTW, is not mine. I'm just summarizing the Amicus Brief some of the most prominent historians submitted, as referenced in the OP. The fact that gun advocates have no response is a definite endorsement.
we could ask witch doctors, drag queens, professional surfboarders or chiropractors what they think and it would be equally relevant. you are right-it does not grant or affirm anything-what it does is prevents the federal government from acting.
Mean NOTHING! You love to truncate posts and put words in peoples mouths. Your tactics are devious and unethical; which proves your argument is thin as piss on a rock.
They are irrelevant to anybody who has no grasp on reality. And you have now stated both that Historian's opinions are not relevant regarding history, just like before you stated before that linguists opinion is not relevant regarding language. So I don't have to explain to anybody reading this who, in this debate, that is.
Wrong as usual. the second amendment is a law. you want to pretend people who have no relevance to the interpretation of the law should be controlling. when we know what the law's enactors intended, we don't need secondary sources trying to counter the intentions of the enactors.
There are several steps in interpreting a legal document including "parole evidence" but if the meaning is clear in the document itself, then you don't need to go to the next level. Golem knows that the founders intended a complete BAR on federal action but that stands in the way of his schemes and desires to want to ban guns. So he tries to bring in irrelevant "evidence' in a dishonest attempt to overcome the clear evidence we already have.
If Scalia had stuck to that argument and just said "WE, the activist justices, are who decide what the law is! Period!", or something to that effect, these threads would be much different. And at least he would have been honest in his reasoning (albeit not in his duties as justice), because that is ALL his ruling actually meant. But instead of that, he went on to pontificate about history and linguistics, two subjects in which had NO expertise and in which he just made up unsubstantiated nonsense.. So the end result was, just the same he legislated and made Heller "the Law of the Land" but also, in the end, he made a fool of himself before the REAL experts on the subjects who proved that he had no clue what he was talking about.
In your opinion. Which is juxtaposed to 238 years of legal precedent and depends on your ability to read a dead man’s mind. AND ignores the fact four other justices joined in that MAJORITY decision. In 3 threads you’ve been unable to convince anyone of your claims. BUT! It’s all irrelevant because even IF “Heller” is ever challenged, that challenge will NOT be based on your historic linguistic mumbo jumbo. There is the whole history of These United States as precedent to the contrary.
Wrong! In the opinion of people who ARE experts and whom I have quoted. And in face of the facts that I have shown and YOU (nor anybody) has even managed to address.
the experts who count deny your claims. the people who wrote the second amendment clearly indicated an individual right. Maybe next you will claim chemists, taxidermists and ballet fashion experts will support your nonsensical claims about the second.
Yes. The experts who have a bench to legislate from are the ones who "count" For now... Justices change, but history doesn't. Sooner or later facts always catch up. Look at you! You have actually given in on trying to discuss facts about a topic in which once YOU claimed you were the forum "expert". Look what a humble IT professional with only facts he quotes from Historians and Linguists on his side can accomplish. Should be a lesson to everybody. You don't need a title in the topic you are discussing. What you need is to make absolutely sure that what you write is supported by FACTS and you can take on anybody. You shouldn't feel too bad, though. I have always believed that if Scalia were to come to this forum, I could put him in a bind too. Scalia was a giant in the topic of laws. But in History and Linguistics he was a novice. And not a very good one at that.
you'd have a better chance beating Rafa Nadal at the French Open then beating Scalia in a historical debate.
Ah! That's a low blow. One of my favorite tennis player of all time! (along with Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg) But the comparison is wrong. It would be more like me having a better chance of beating Rafa Nadal in a historical debate. However, that might not work because I have no clue how much Nadal knows about American history. All I know is that Scalia doesn't know much. And you even less.
