If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Nice no true scotsman fallacy dude. The fact of the matter is numerous linguists advice was taken by the majority, and numerous linguists agree with the majority.

We've linked you the diagrammed sentence before, with write ups by two different linguists. You may also go by what was cited in heller. Its literally grade school english man.

When things are so obvious I tend to stand on their evidence. Notice how your sentences lack something the 2a and my example do not? Gosh! What could that be?

It would not be completely meaningless, it would have the exact same meaning and effect: The right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

 

That's not how international law or foreign relations work but sure dairyair you keep telling yourself that

 

The 2nd Amendment is a guarantee that the Federal government will not infringe on the right to protect yourself with a firearm from ANY danger. That includes the government, criminals, wild animals, foreign invaders, etc...

People who try to renege on a perpetual guarantee written within the Constitution have no respect for the same Constitution.

Meanwhile, that same group of people who are crying for confiscation have no interest in stopping the weapons flow across the Southern border used to guard drug shipments.

The Progressive Elites can push this till the sun goes down..... Not going to happen !!!

 

If the Government wouldn't give me FAIR! Market value for my Guns and was going to steal them from me, I'd dump them on the side of the Road and lay a Free sign on top of them, so that any other Criminal would have access to them and then claim they were stolen OR! I'll just wrap them up and bury them somewhere and again, CLAIM! they were stolen. Right now, I'm a RESPONSIBLE Legal Gun owner that keeps my Guns secure from Criminals, but if the Government is not going to go after the Criminals and Illegals who have Guns illegally FIRST! but come after the Law abiding Gun owners first, I have a BIG! problem with that. All the Government needs to do is assure ME and every other Legal responsible Gun Owner is that there arn't anymore Criminals and Illegals running around with Guns they shouldn't have, that could be used against us, while were defenseless Victims. Plain and Simple get the Bad Guys Guns first and then we'll listen to how they plan on paying us Fair Market restitution for our Firearms we've legally purchased and never believed they'd be confiscated under the 2nd Amendment.

 

Yup. A sick minded jail bird (he is in a Mercer County, NJ jail as we speak). Note how he criticizes the black man and white man who embraced and how all the people there ignored him so that there was no violence.

By contrast, here are your violent ''patriots'':


https://tinyurl.com/yyxdzy6u

 

Except that it was Reagan and Bush who violated the 2d Amendment. Progs did not do so.

 

Wrong you can ask people to disembark before the ship docks..

Also. That's really horrible writting.

Much better is the passengers were asked to disembark shortly after the ship arrived.

The passengers are the important part so that should be the starting point.

 

Laws are based on linguistics. The plain English of the second amendment, and the rules of grammar show you to be wrong.

 

Have you forgotten about 1994's Assault Weapon ban? Definitely a prog thing. In fact, it destroyed the progs, and produced the Contract with America.

 

Proper paraphrasing of the 2nd ammendment.

Government cannot be trusted to provide security or freedom for it's people, therefore the people will be trusted to care for these themselves. To that end the God given right of each individual to own and carry the means of self defense shall be seen as an immutable right that the government shall have no jurisdiction over.

 

They are not 'mine' for I never called them patriots, like YOU called a violent group of black supremacist. I bet you call these 'patriots' as well...

 

Wrong! The most prominent linguists in the country wrote an independent Amicus Brief and submitted it to the court for consideration. It was ignored by the majority! Scalia simply made up his own linguistics.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...PetitionerAmCu3LinguisticsEnglishProfsnew.pdf

Exactly! It is grade school level! That's as far as Scalia's knowledge about linguistics went.

Much more than grade school English was necessary. As the Linguists demonstrated in the document I mentioned above.

 

You want people to swim to shore?

What nonsense.

In any case, my example says "embark"

Yeah. But keep trying ... you'll do better next time.

 

They sure are! It's Scalia's decision that was based on ... something he pulled out of "his ass"

 

Same difference..
1. Writting in the passive tense sucks
2. The 2nd ammendment isn't for the militia only. It is an individual right just like the rest of the bill of rights.

 

Dude. Seriously. Did you never learn what a prefatory clause was?

 

In linguistics it's more common to refer to it as an "absolute clause". But Scalia has popularized the term "prefatory". Linguists understand what he is referring to. But they also understand that Scalia was an attorney, and knew nothing about linguistics.

All your responses have been characterized by the lack arguments. Throwing in terms and asking me if I know what they mean is not an argument. It's a sign that you are not going to make any. So I don't plan on wasting my time waiting for you to make one anymore.

Thanks for playing.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I met your link with a link, and raised you a court case.
The fact that you were already all in and dont have anything to follow on with isnt my problem

 

Tell us how it works.
We sanction a country so that can't get nukes, even though you claim they already have them.

We say they can't have them, but you think individual people can have them.

 

Can one legally own a machine gun made after 1986?
Seems our rights have been infringed upon.

 

Yes.
Yes they have been.

 

Its not so they never get them. It's to haze and otherwise punish them for the attempt at joining the club that none of the current members want new members in. It's not like we have to stop ****ing with when they cross the finish line either.

 

Yes, they have, erroneously.

 

No, it’s based on the plain English language of the amendment, the rules of grammar, and records from its drafting.

 

Did you not claim individual people have a right to own nukes? Per your understanding of 2A?
So, all individuals should be able to own them, why not all countries?