you never seem able to tell us why your misinterpretation of the second amendment is proper given you have absolutely no legal authority supporting your misinterpretation
And you thought "Yay! Finally we can change the subject from the OP which I can't rebut!" right? No such luck! I brought it up as a side note directed at somebody who (hopefully) knows what it means. Definitely NOT intended for any poster who wouldn't understand the reference. And most definitely NOT as an excuse to change the subject. The topic of this is the 2nd A. And there is no need to address it further with you or any of the posters who have capitulated on it, as can be easily inferred from their attempts to change the subject. However, once you've studied it, you can open a thread if you have questions about it.
You give me too much credit. I have no interpretation of the 2nd A that could be called mine. All I can do is quote what the framers discussed according to historians and what linguists tell us about the wording used. They (linguists and historians) DO coincide in that the 2nd A has nothing to do with "owning firearms". And your continuous attempts to change the subject, in this case to try to make the discussion about ME, indicates that you have capitulated to those facts.
the second amendment is a complete bar on the federal government preventing the keeping, bearing, OWNING, USING etc firearms by private citizens in their private capacity. Why don't you tell us what your goal is-I already know the answer though
I have shown evidence that this is false. And you have failed to even address my evidence. But, instead, continuously keep trying to change the subject and dilute it by adding what in the above quote is references as "[...]" You do this again and again. To any moderately intelligent reader that should mean that you are not capable of addressing my arguments. Here is the post that you couldn't respond to. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-2nd-amendment.586263/page-29#post-1074362330 After that you went back to your habit of trying to change the subject.
no you haven't. you pretend keeping and bearing has no relevance to "owning". where you fail (often) is pretending that if the government has no power to prevent you from keeping and bering, it still retained some power to prevent you from OWNING
Exactly the opposite: that owning is not relevant to keeping and bearing arms. As proven by the fact that servicemen keep and bear arms but don't own them. And as further proven by the fact that, as the OP documents (link to historian's Amicus brief is there too), "owning firearms" WAS mentioned in the discussions leading to the approval in Congress of the 2nd A, and was voted down! Serious question: Do you realize how ridiculous it looks that somebody who claims to have some "expertise" on the constitution can only counter what somebody who DOESN'T claim to have ANY expertise on the constitution (me) says by twisting around their words and continuously attempting to change the subject? Step up your game! Stay on topic. Debate what I DO say, and not what I don't! Quote what you respond to, and show us clear and direct evidence that it's wrong. If you can't do that with somebody whose only arguments come from what he's read from linguists and historians, you're not going to get very far in your career.
I said that it doesn't say anything one way or the other about the use of guns for private purposes so I'm not arguing that it restricts such usage.
Is this supposed to be an argument? The anti-federalists wanted to be assured that the state militias would not be disarmed. It would make much more sense to base an argument against gun control on the Tenth Amendment rather than the Second Amendment.
Can you be 100% certain what "to keep and bear arms" means? If not then it makes sense to look to the preamble for clarification.
Preamble is just that, an exposition of what the following intends to establish or create. "keep and bear". is pretty specific.
Seriously? What does "keep" mean to you? Total non sequitur. KEEP is pretty clear to a rational being.
Or on article 1, section 8, which contains no legislative power having anything to do with guns. You of course realize that congress can only make laws that are necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers enumerated in 1:8.
His bit about keeping and bearing not being relevant to OWNING is one of the most specious arguments I have ever seen. Notice he never answered this rather destructive question-if the federal government is prevented from infringing on the right of individuals to KEEP AND BEAR arms, HTF does anyone argue that the same government can actually infringe on OWNING arms?
I hope you are learned enough to understand that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant the federal government any legislative powers relating to the sale, possession, or use of firearms.
that's not relevant. the second amendment is not about what WE can do-but what the GOVERNMENT cannot do
You're splitting hairs. The people could take different forms. What do you think the delegates to the Constitutional Convention meant when they referred to themselves as "We the People"?
So lets go back to when the constitution was revealed by the convention and then each of the states had to decide whether to ratify it. It sounds like you're saying that an institution that had yet to exits (the supreme court) was the only way for these states to undestand what they were agreeing to. That is patently absurd.
not relevant=-the second amendment was clearly intended to create a negative restriction upon the new federal government concerning the rights of individual citizens.
