What the founders "believed" is irrelevant. Only thing that matters is what they got approved. Which was probably very relevant in the 18th Century, but not anymore because now we have Armed Forces to "keep and bear arms" for us, and no militias.
So you would assume that the military would support him, but his supporters wouldn't? You make less and less sense by the second. Which a few messages, I thought couldn't get worse. Is this on purpose? That's the easy part. At least that you can figure out. Responded when I made the statement. What you call "strange wiring' most people would call "rational thought"
what the founders intended the second to do is extremely important in light of revisionists who dishonestly try to pretend the second amendment did not ratify a natural right
well since militia service is not a prerequisite to the right and rather is a negative restriction on the government, who cares?
I fail to see what this "collective sense" vs "individual sense" has to do with it. It's military... period! I already responded to that. Or, rather, the linguists addressed that. Why would anybody use "keep" in an sense than "bear arms"? and also, the phrase is not "to keep arms and to bear arms". It's to "keep and bear arms" Which indicates that "keep" is meant in the sense of "to give maintenance". Not to "own" them. Just like in the term "housekeeper" the "keep" part doesn't refer to who owns the home (this example is mine) but to who provides maintenance. As for the rest (as well as most of the above)... I don't know what to say because you are not making any points. Just quoting articles that I submitted because they prove my point. So I don't even know what you are trying to argue..
No, the individual sense is civilian, not military. The "Army of One" didn't exist in the 18th century. 1. Your argument that linguistics, and only linguistics, shows that the 2A doesn't protect an individual right: ""Corpus linguistics offers a very promising new avenue for originalist research, but it may not always fully answer the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Linguistic inquiries often fail to account for other evidence that informs constitutional meaning, including the structure of the Constitution and historical practice. And even within the linguistic evidence, we still need to determine whether all sources are treated equal or whether some sources should be seen as more probative of the interpretive question at hand. Specifically, we have to recognize that for legal terms of art, certain legal materials will be the most relevant. For non-legal-terms-of-art, non-legal materials will be the most relevant. For example, state constitutional provisions that protect the right to bear arms, that were drafted contemporaneously with the Second Amendment, perhaps should be weighted more heavily than other sources. Should substantially all available evidence—linguistics, the Constitution’s structure, and historical practice—point in the same direction, then we can be rather confident about the original meaning of “the right of the People to keep and bear arms." This passage indicates that the Harvard Review authors don't agree with your claim that it's all up to linguistics. As I mentioned earlier, historical practice from ratification through present day would show that the right is an individual right. 2. Your argument that every reference to an individual context includes a qualifier is in fact true. Perhaps you can show this for the 2008 Heller amicus brief. You've not even attempted to show that all references shown by Professors Alison LaCroix and Jason Merchant where in 18.2% of the sample, the phase was used in an individual sense buy only with a qualifier. 3. Your argument that any statement with a qualifier lessens the argument of an individual right is in fact true. 4. My argument that the 2nd can't possibly protect the arms of the militia given the unfettered enumerated power of Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to determine who can be in the militia and what arms the militia is allowed to possess.
Yes... and the constitutionally allowable limitations for the right to keep and bear arms follows the same pattern as the allowable limititations on the right to free speech, the right to an abortion, etc.
They did at the time the 2nd Amendment was approved by the States. And if you would have told anybody at the time that, if they went out hunting, the 2nd Amendment would guarantee them the right to "bear arms" against a rabbit, they would laugh you off your cozy 21st-century centered massage-chair..
You think serving in the well-regulated militia is comparable to putting gays to death? Regardless, it's still part of Constitution. You don't get to misinterpret the Constitution because you don't like what it says. Push for an amendment that protects gun ownership unconnected to militia service if you object so strongly to serving in the militia.
You have not. You have quoted articles that I submitted, and which ultimately prove different aspects of my point. And you have done so without even stating any argument of your own. So you haven't even provided so much as an attempt at a rebuttal. I challenge you to summarize your rebuttal to my point. A short summary will do. Do you need me to repeat my core point before you do that? I'd be glad to, for the sake of clarity. But I've repeated it so many times, I don't wan't to appear too repetitive.
[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; How does the 2nd Amendment protect the arms and/or organization of the Militia? If Congress passes a law stating that the militia consists of 20 6 foot blonde guys armed as vikings, that's the law and the power of the militia to arm themselves with firearms no longer exists. You continue to claim that you know the minds of every single person who was alive in the 18th century. That's quite an amazing claim.
Using your own sources is the best source for a rebuttal. You understand that, right? You can't possibly deny the veracity of the source. From the Harvard Law Review article: "Corpus linguistics offers a very promising new avenue for originalist research, but it may not always fully answer the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Linguistic inquiries often fail to account for other evidence that informs constitutional meaning, including the structure of the Constitution and historical practice. And even within the linguistic evidence, we still need to determine whether all sources are treated equal or whether some sources should be seen as more probative of the interpretive question at hand. Specifically, we have to recognize that for legal terms of art, certain legal materials will be the most relevant. For non-legal-terms-of-art, non-legal materials will be the most relevant. For example, state constitutional provisions that protect the right to bear arms, that were drafted contemporaneously with the Second Amendment, perhaps should be weighted more heavily than other sources. Should substantially all available evidence—linguistics, the Constitution’s structure, and historical practice—point in the same direction, then we can be rather confident about the original meaning of “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.” Your own source admits that "Linguistic inquiries often fail to account for other evidence that informs constitutional meaning".
Linguistic analysis may be useful in prividing some insight into language constructs within a culture, but do not necessarily provide conclusive evidence of meaning to or the general understanding of the 2A’s authors at the time of drafting it. A frequency analysis of historic documents of word associations does not provide the the historic context or contemporary discussions that prompted the framers of the Constitution to include the Bill of rights. In Anthropology, there has often been debate be those favoring etic vs emic approaches in culture studies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic These are two kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained:[1] emic, from within the social group (from the perspective of the subject) and etic, from outside (from the perspective of the observer). The Harvard study’s approach is an Etic one where Emic inferences are drawn and invites criticism on that basis. What is missing is an understanding of the historic context and the contemporary ‘Emic’ understanding meaning given recent historic events and the emerging philosophical governance thinking that the Constitution’s authors were influenced by in the overall framing of its principles. Some of this can be gleaned from the debates between those at the Convention captured in minutes, from their coorespondance, from their writings, from previous 2A drafts, and documents by other that influenced their thinking at the time, including such as Thomas Payne, and other law. https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.state2nd.html Then too, understanding the association of individual rights linked with the concept of a militia can be understood in the context of the evolution of the thinking about militias. The following piece is one of the better ones in my opinion that examines the historic context of the 2A’s development. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr I have always found it interesting that some, at the time felt the BOR unnecessary, that the rights to be acknowledged and protected, were universally accepted and understood. In addition, despite the decades of attempts by those attempting to subvert and reframe the 2A to obviate it, the common, misunderstood, meaning of the 2A, among most Americans was that it granted the individual right to gun ownership while the supposed intellectual left focused on parsing it into a collective interpretation. But interestingly, most of those in history when about life as if the BOR protected individual rights even when various government bodies made laws in contradiction to both the Constitution and common understanding.
The united states constitution does not speak of a right of the people to fulfill government obligations by serving in the militia. Beyond that matter, nothing demonstrated on the part of yourself has shown anyone demanding rights without responsibilities. Such does not need to be done, as the matter was settled in the Heller ruling. Under the terms of the ruling, firearms ownership and use is completely unconnected with anything, except for the constitutional right to self defense.
What "revisionists" think is irrelevant. What founders "want" is irrelevant. Only relevant thing is what those who approved the amendment believed they were approving. And linguists have determined, without a shadow of a doubt, what that was.
No, there are shadows of doubt. "Corpus linguistics offers a very promising new avenue for originalist research, but it may not always fully answer the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Linguistic inquiries often fail to account for other evidence that informs constitutional meaning, including the structure of the Constitution and historical practice. And even within the linguistic evidence, we still need to determine whether all sources are treated equal or whether some sources should be seen as more probative of the interpretive question at hand. Specifically, we have to recognize that for legal terms of art, certain legal materials will be the most relevant. For non-legal-terms-of-art, non-legal materials will be the most relevant. For example, state constitutional provisions that protect the right to bear arms, that were drafted contemporaneously with the Second Amendment, perhaps should be weighted more heavily than other sources. Should substantially all available evidence—linguistics, the Constitution’s structure, and historical practice—point in the same direction, then we can be rather confident about the original meaning of “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”
I guess only anybody who wants to argue that a right to own guns is granted, or confirmed, or affirmed, or described.... by the 2nd Amendment.
