It absolutely is. "Keep and bear" is synonymous with "own". As desperately as you slice and dice the language you can't escape that fact.
according to Golem the founders should have said the right of the people to keep, own, bear, service, use, look at, store, repair, buy, acquire carry, transport, maintain, oil, load, unload, shoot, pack, convey firearms, spears, arrows, dirks, broadswords, muskets, handguns, flails, nunchaku, tonfa, bayonets, knives, rapiers, clubs, poleaxes, crossbows, longbows, flat bows, horse bows, staffs, canes, blackjacks, cudgels, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, tactical pens, three sectioned staffs, chains, slings shall not be infringed, restricted, interfered with, harassed impeded, prevented, blockaded, or negated.
wrong-we reject your silly claim that Keep and bear does not encompass ownership we also laugh at the suggestion that you think the government can ban ownership but not "keep and bearing" it's hilarious
You can reject whatever you want. But I have shown EVIDENCE, and you refuse to address it. EVERY time I show my evidence you change the subject. Furthermore, I'm showing unequivocal evidence of a NEGATIVE statement. Which is immensely more difficult than evidence of an affirmative claim. This would come in the form of a QUOTE from the discussions leading to the adoption and ratification of the 2nd A in Congress, in which the framers SAY that they intended to address gun ownership. There are records of PLENTY of discussions that led to the final draft of the 2nd A. I have provided many in these threads. Your inability to SHOW a quote proves my case. But then again, you KNOW this... I remember a while back when I said the same, and you spent DAYS looking for the quote and could not come up with one.
no you haven't. the best you have been able to claim is that keep and bear was usually a military connotation back then which is easily explained by the fact the founders had just been in a WAR. how many founders claimed that the second was not supposed to protect ownership how can you have a citizen militia where those who may join the call up cannot own firearms
YOU'RE the one who has said that again and again. Not me. In fact, I have exposed that nonsense that YOU made up so many times that the REAL question becomes why am I wasting my time attempting to engage in a serious discussion with somebody who is clearly not serious.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE supporting your fictitious claims that Keep and bear doesn't include ownership. I already noted what you claimed the second should say. . You have proven you are not able to engage in serious HONEST discussion because you constantly make stuff up while ignoring obvious reality
It's amazing how 2A backers throw Originalism out the window. Even if you accept the NRA's individual ownership over the original intent of collective ownership, Art1Sec8 of Constitution clearly lays out that Congress regulates, controls, equips, discipline, etc militias. Plus, as many justices stated before the 21st century NRA SCOTUS, the 2A is only about military purposes and really doesn't even apply any longer since we now have standing army and national guard. And the 2A certainly wasn't created to overthrow our government as Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion and and Lincoln won the Civil War. I'm afraid the NRA completely reconditioned generations to incorrectly understand and interpret the original and historical facts about 2A.
lets see 1) the founders stated that the constitution should never be construed to disarm the people 2) the founders never gave the federal government any gun control power over private citizens 3) the founders never even stated that states or militias had right to arms-that was the people which means the individual citizens. 4) even if the second was solely so private citizens could serve in a militia, there is no hint that the founders thought that citizens could not use firearms for other lawful purposes 5) claiming that the national guard is the same as a militia is moronic 6) claiming that since your erroneous interpretation of the second is now obsolete and should be disregarded is also moronic-you would need to pass an amendment to a) eliminate the second amendment and b) to properly empower the federal government to be able to restrict firearms
do anti gun lefties really claim that those with felony records should be able to own guns or is that as lame an argument as those who say if we think nukes can be banned from private possession we cannot argue against semi auto rifles being banned? Now I don't think the federal government has the proper power to ban exfelons from owning firearms but I think state governments do
Yes it should. The Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to bear arms, was one of a long list of bad omnibus-style laws undermining our constitutional rights, and is one prime example of how the 'never let a crisis go to waste' mentality is used to coax our rights away from us. The GCA68 was passed largely as a response to the assassinations of JFK and MLK, though neither of those shootings would have been prevented by any of the 'regulations' that the GCA68 implemented. It was the epitome of 'well we have to do something and now' mob mentality the Constitution is supposed to act as a fortification against. And it would, if we enforced a literal interpretation of it. But we don't, and that's in part why felons who do their time are still treated as second class citizens. IIRC it was also passed in response to the Black Panthers increasingly bearing arms, and given the racially biased laws of the preceding few decades, probably resulted in a lot more 'troublesome black people' (read: blacks with criminal records from before/during the Civil Rights era) losing their right to bear arms than anyone else ...as so often is the case with 'gun control regulations.'
What argument are you talking about? I asked a simple question: Why would it be the founders intention (as you said) in ANY scenario, that women and older men wouldn't have a right to keep and bear arms?. Other than the question, I have made NO argument that would relate specifically to women and older men. It's clear that you can't answer the question, so you decided to PROJECT! So the question has been answered by your LACK of an answer. Thanks for playing...
Apparently you do not remember your argument. Given your dancing, distorting, running, and stating outright falsehoods, this isn't a surprise. And, it explains why have no capacity to defend it.
what do you think that means? I will tell you what it DOES NOT MEAN 1) it does not give nor reference any power of the federal government to regulate firearms owned by private citizens 2) it in no way diminishes the negative restriction placed upon the federal government 3) nor does it mean a government control over a state militia-rather it means a state militia in good working order
yep, gun rights and voting rights remember, if the Constitution doesn't protect the least among us their rights, it protects no ones... as when you have to have the privilege to have a right, it's no longer a right... it's a privilege
