Worse! That means he FEIGNED ignorance of history when he wrote Heller. I DON'T cite ANY linguists. I cite their WORK. In the case of the structural analysis, I don't need to cite anybody because ANY English speaker would be able to understand the phrases in the same way. In the case of the meaning of "keep and bear arms" I also cite the databases they used. And I link to the search engine for those databases. So ANYBODY can repeat their research. They don't even have to be linguists. In the thread I cite the FOUNDERS and the sources in case you want to verify. THAT is how you make a point! I learned that when I was still an undergraduate. I learned that throwing in names is NOT how you make a point. In fact, the person who throws in names (like you did in your previous message) is CLEAR indication that they dont' understand what they cite. You don't make a point by attacking the authors that the other person uses. You attack what they say. But you attack with FACTS! These are things I learned very very young. Obviously you haven't.
And you know what the cool thing is? Regardless of how one reads the 2nd, we know that we have a right to use, own, and possess arms. It says so right there in the 9th amendment.
It assumes NO such thing. I included a more complete explanation in the APPROPRIATE thread here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-bear-arms.586083/page-58#post-1074365111
I like to quote a famed British writer No matter what happens what we have got is the Maxim gun and they have not
yeah and that ignores reality and common sense. the second is a complete ban on the federal government acting in an area which it never was given any proper power to begin with have you ever been able to explain the line in Cruikshank where the USSC noted that the right is not dependent on the constitution?
I think I’ve heard that one before. At the time of the framing, the English common law recognized the right to be armed both for protection and hunting. The right goes back centuries and was well understood by the founders. It was clearly one of the unenumerated rights referred to in the 9th.
It's not some "right", in quotes, it is a RIGHT, and one of the most important ones, that human beings are BORN WITH. It is not granted by the Constitution, in fact, many including myself will and have argued that the RKBA exists in the US of A even absent the 2A, either on 10th Amendment grounds, because the government has not been granted the authority to regulate them, or because, as you yourself have stated many times, the idea that we need to inform government that we have that right is no different than needing to tell them we have a right to wear blue underwear, or some combination of all of the above. Almost 1,000 posts on this one thread alone, and it's a topic that you post a thread on almost every week, so by now, you must be in the tens of thousands of total posts, and you have made precisely zero progress in implementing your agenda, or winning hearts and minds. Even the Supreme Court has essentially told you to piss off with your nonsense. It's done, it's over, and you... LOST! Get over it, and move on, maybe you can revisit in in 3 or 4 decades when some of the current Justices retire or die, but by then, with the mountain of precedent that will have stood for, in some cases, centuries, you won't have any better luck.
Great! So we are in agreement that it's not because of the 2nd A. My point is made. See how easy it is?
prior to Heller, there was a rather strong current in freedom circles about using the ninth as the best argument against federal gun control. IMHO the tenth was the very best but FDR laid a steaming turd on that amendment and "faint hearted conservatives" didn't have the balls to reject the bogus FDR unconstitutional nonsense
BY LAW... what they say has the force of law, The alternative is to pass an amendment and change the Constitution. In your personal life you are allowed to whine, complain, and disagree all you want... there are few RULES. You have all sorts of alternatives. In the world of LAW, when the Supreme Court has ruled, you have TWO alternatives.,, obey the law... or pass an amendment.
If your entire premise rests upon the notion that a right comes from the ruling class, then you are already compromised in your thinking when it comes to the nature of the 2A. But it was, in the very clear and independent second clause. The first phrase (...Militia...) of the final amendment does not limit the second phrase. Its participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms. Well, there you go. The 2A was added to protect the right to join the militia with one's arms that no one questioned the right to. And, the amendment was designed to reflect that there was no question about the right to keep and bear arms and that it should never be questioned.
And, as we know for the progressive statist mindset, one's interests are rightfully imposed on others so long as one can gain the political power to force conformity to one's interests. Or, to put it succinctly, the end justifies the means.
I'd be curious to read more about FDR and the 10th. I know about him and the commerce clause, but I'd like to see how he perverted the 10th.
the entire new deal was a violation of the tenth amendment. Many new deal schemes were struck down in the first few years of his regime. after he won big in 36, he threatened to pack the supreme court and it then started allowing his blatantly unconstitutional bullshit to remain in place. Does anyone with even a scintilla of honesty believe that the commerce clause was intended or written to allow congress to control what private citizens did in their own states in their own private capacity-for example sanctioning a farmer for growing wheat for his own personal use? or to create a de facto ban on machine guns?
I cannot find the cite-but I recall during discussion of the New Deal in Constitutional Law class 42 years ago or so, our professor-a hard core liberal-noted that until FDR was in office-the CC was never used as a justification for congress to exercise power over a private citizen. The commerce clause was envisioned as a device to prevent (hypothetically -an example I have seen dozens of times) one state from interfering with interstate commerce such as OHIO imposing tariffs on Pennsylvania coal being sent by barge down the Ohio river to Evansville Indiana or SE Illinois.
Yes, my understanding as well is that was the exact intent. Basically the idea was to make the separate states into a massive free trade block. Not to control someone growing wheat on his own farm, obviously.
Lincoln didn't institute long lasting malignancy at anywhere near the rate FDR did and FDR didn't have as big a domestic crisis to deal with
It does not. My entire premise rests on the notion that the 2nd A, as written and approved by Congress and the states, does not confer, grant, affirm, recognize.... whatever you want to call it.... some "right" to own weapons. It ALSO doesn't limit it. It just doesn't address it in ANY way. But please do try again! Yours is at least a serious attempt at a serious discussion. Haven't seen those in this thread for a while. Nor have I said that it does. When you think I said something, you should try to QUOTE it. Chances are I didn't. And you won't waste your time trying to rebut something that NOBODY has claimed here. Just a suggestion.... As I said, you are trying to debunk something I DIDN'T say. But the linguistic analysis of the 2nd A is discussed in these threads. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ If the car tires are not flat, the whole amendment becomes moot. Whether Congress wishes to infringe or not depends on OTHER factors. Not contained in the amendment. Again: this is discussed with more detail in http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/ But, again, I think you are attempting to rebut an argument that I haven't made. "Keep and bear arms" does NOT mean "own weapons". Two different things... http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ But you couldn't just "join". At least not the NATIONAL militia (when a militia was called by Congress). You had to enlist. Anyway.... that's a different topic.
Oh, I agree that FDR wrought the most destruction. I was simply noting that Lincoln had the same nationalistic (vs federal) inclinations.
He hates private gun ownership and wants to disarm the public. With that desire in mind-he re-interprets the second to allow that
