I can discuss that. But that would depend on whether or not you have anything of interest to argue. I doubt you do but THIS thread is about the 2nd A. Your insistence, as well as that of all right-wingers here to change the subject only, underscores the fact that I am right.
Sure. But, as the OP shows, they didn't have any of that in mind when they discussed the 2nd A. In fact, it shows that the concept of "militia" in natural law was purposefully DISMISSED when redacting the 2nd A, at the behest of Washington and Hamilton They'd be terrified! But it's NOT what the 2nd A addresses. It addresses what is explained on the OP: mostly the need for the states to not neglect the militias. And that's what the discussions were about. NOT about whether or not citizens should own weapons.
why does it say the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE not the POWER OF THE STATES to arm its militia. tell us Golem-what is your end game in your black knight windmill tilting? to convince us that it is proper for the federal government to ban guns
100% CORRECT! Finally you're learning! In fact, the attempt by anti-federalists to introduce weapon ownership in the Amendment was scorned because they thought it unnecessary. Specifically by Noah Webster as quoted on the OP See why you should have started by reading the OP? It took almost 30 pages of this thread for you to learn all of this.
Because the people have a right to form part of militias and defend the country, and the 2nd A underlines that the states have the OBLIGATION to do whatever is needed to accommodate that right. Which means training them, organizing them, naming the officers, arming them... whatever is needed to make sure the militias are ready to fight any enemy, foreign or domestic.
that's complete silliness-to pretend that keep and bearing does not include owning is so stupid that your argument cannot be taken seriously
a militia is an ad hoc military unit formed expeditiously in the face of an emergency. Private citizens must have arms to do that.
It makes no difference, as far as the 2nd A is concerned, if the person owns the weapon or if the state provides it or if it's stolen from an enemy, or if Congress provides it... It just doesn't address the mater one way or another. It just addresses "keep and bear arms", which means maintain in good working order and use it against the enemy in a military scenario. “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” -Garry Wills
Not as stupid as believing that you can't fight against an invading enemy unless you OWN the weapon you use. That would come as a shock to any military who was asked to return their arms when they were not in the battlefield in any of the wars this country has fought.
that is irrelevant. the issue is whether the second protects a right to own firearms. not whether you can use a firearm you borrow, are issued by a governmental unit, take from a dead enemy, or steal from the opposition. This is another case of semantic weaseling. Of course a military operator does not OWN a weapon issued to him, nor does he have a right to keep and bear it contrary to the commands of its owner or supplier.
Ah! See how you chose your words? "Have" instead of "own"? THAT tells me that you understood the message but are desperately trying to find a way out. We are definitely making progress now.
your condescending airs get old given it is you who are constantly being schooled. You keep trying to pretend that the second amendment does not protect OWNERSHIP of arms-it does. Your well known SOP of trying to twist words to salvage a destroyed argument is amusing though
100% irrelevant! And that's why the framers didn't feel the need to address gun ownership. As the OP explains (I wish you read the OP, so I don't have to keep repeating myself), the framers considered people had the right to own a gun, just like they had a right to own ANY private property: a hat, a house, a horse... They felt NO need to enact an amendment to address gun ownership anymore than they felt the need for an amendment addressing the right to own .. PANTS. Exactly! They can "keep and bear arms" REGARDLESS of whether or not they own the firearm in question. Ownership is not a sine qua non for "keep and bear arms" So, like you said above, it's irrelevant.
Quote the word "own" in the amendment. Or in any DISCUSSION by the framers ahead of passing the 2nd A. I'll leave that for you as homework for tomorrow. Good night!
the second amendment is a negative restriction on a government that was never given any PROPER power to interfere with the ownership, use, bearing, acquisition etc of arms by private citizens acting in a private capacity
LOL, students don't tell professors to do homework. Tell us where the founders believed the federal government should have ANY power to restrict what arms PRIVATE citizens could own, bear, keep use etc in their private capacities.
Dude don't know what Liberty is, much less that people have a Right to Liberty. I said it before and I'll say it again. -The constitution is folly unless read within the context of the Declaration of Independence.
It was never given any power to interfere with ownership of cocaine either, except when "proper and necessary...". But that's a different topic. You keep trying to change the subject. Why? Never mind, We both know why.
See who keeps changing the subject? THAT is the sign of somebody who LACKS arguments. This thread has NOTHING to do with "restricting" ... anything. We were doing so well and now that you feel you lack arguments AGAIN you try to change the subject. Which means it is now clear that the 2nd A does NOT address acquiring or owning any firearms. It doesn't affirm it, it doesn't restrict it,... it simply doesn't address the topic at all. And this fact is clear now to you, seeing how you keep trying to change the subject. My task is done. Thanks for playing!
If you're not familiar with the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the Constitution, you better start researching it.... quick! Because it's a very important part of the constitution. The poster I responded to says he has taken some courses about constitutional law... or something. So I presume the person I directed that to IS familiar with it. If you want to contribute to the debate, you'll need to catch up on your own. In any case, this thread is not about the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's about the 2nd A. That was just another failed attempt by the poster to change the subject. If, once you've studied it, you want to discuss it... open a thread with whatever questions you might have.
You're the one who brought up the necessary and proper clause. From the way you quoted it, it seems you are not familiar with it, so I was checking to see if you understood it correctly.
