Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

"Can"? Prove that it does.
In order for you to be right, you have to soundly demonstrate the impossibly absurd notion that the 2nd protects NOT the right of the people to own their own firearms, but instead the right of the people to maintain weapons owned by someone else.

"Keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess anything you do not own - you can be granted the -privilege- but not the right.

"Keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess anything you do not own - you can be granted the -privilege- but not the right.
Thus, the 2nd protects the right of the people to OWN weapons. Own AND use, both protected.
That is, the ownership of a weapon is not tied to its use; you have the right to own a weapon, even if you never use it.

You make my case - you have no right to said car, only the privilege of driving it so long as you maintain your end of the contract.
Well done.

You inclusion of a link is a citation, and the information found there is an opinion, not a proof.
Fact remains: -you- cannot demonstrate your claims to be true; If you have a point to make, that's your burden, no one elses.

Your statement is false, and you know it to be false, because you know I -clearly- stated there is no right to be in a militia or use your weapon in a militia.
Thus, there is no infringement possible, much less present.
You choose to rest your case on a willfully false statement.

As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, I expected better.

 

Of course! I'm not quoting! I'm explaining it. So you say that was the only difference. That's wonderful!

 

What for? There is no need. Your argument was that that was the ONLY possible meaning. I proved that it's not. I debunked your argument.

Next!

Uhmm... no. Actually I don't have to demonstrate that because I haven't said anything of the kind. For those who are part of a well regulated militia it makes no difference, in my argument, who owns the firearms.

Ok. Now you're desperate. I don't think there is anybody on any side of the argument who reads this that would agree that you don't possess (which means "to be in possession of") something that you rented, for example. Or that you received for safe-keeping. Or as a loan....

Not only do you have a right (you paid for that right when you rent it), but you have a duty to keep (oh... that word again) it in good working condition. That's why some form of insurance is usually required.

Clearly you ran out of arguments. So much so that you even ran out of strawman arguments. Your arguments are so lousy that I'm pretty sure not even most of those on your side of the 2nd A debate would agree with them.

 

You cannot demonstrate a rational basis for your "explanation" - that is, you cannot prove your "explanation" sound.

 

You offer "provide maintenance" as a possible alternative to "own". As such, the onus is on you to show your offering as valid -- If you have a point to make, that's your burden
Thus, the need for you do to so.

It is:
"Keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess anything you do not own - you can be granted the -privilege- but not the right.
The fact the 2nd protects the -right- to "keep" arms negates any other possible interpretations, all of which necessitate that said possession is a privilege granted by someone else.
You have yet to meaningfully address this, because you know you cannot.

You know you statement, above, is false.
You said that instead of "own", "[keep] can mean to provide maintenance"
As such, you suggest the 2nd protects the right of the people to maintain and bear arms owned not by the people themselves, but by someone else.
Thus, In order for you to be right, you have to soundly demonstrate the impossibly absurd notion that the 2nd protects NOT the right of the people to own their own firearms, but instead the right of the people to maintain weapons owned by someone else -- as you know, if you have a point to make, that's your burden

As you know, the point of contention here is that you can have a privilege to possess something owned by someone else, but not a right to possess something owned by someone else. Your privilege to possess is, wholly and fully, limited by the terms and conditions of the contract with whomever granted said privilege..
The 2nd amendment protects a right, and as such, your privilege to possess but not own argument can hold no water.

As someone who took a long time to research the validity of his arguments, I expected better.[/quote][/quote]

 

Of course this is not true. The militia were required to own their own gun, ammunition, and other equipment needed to fight. Here is the text of the 1792 militia act.

It was deemed so important that each militia member OWN their own equipment the act made such equipment exempt from seizure by anyone for debts, law suits, or taxes due.

The fact this act was passed only 5 months after ratification of the second amendment makes it clear private ownership of firearms was not only allowed, but required as part of the second amendment. The notion militia were allowed to take state or federally owned arms home is patently false. The arms were 100% under private ownership and control.

I hope this clears things up for everyone. Carry on.

 

Ok. This is ridiculous. You demand that I show that the verb "to keep" can mean "to maintain in good working order" clearly indicates that you do not intend to maintain a serious debate. Of course I can show that even today, that "maintain' is one of the definitions of "keep"

keep
verb
\ ˈkēp \
kept\ ˈkept \; keeping

Definition of keep
...

3: PRESERVE, MAINTAIN: such as
a: ...
b
(1): to take care of : TEND, keep a garden
(2): SUPPORT
(3): to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition —usually used with up
...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keep​

And, if you follow the link, you'll see many other meanings of the verb. But this one alone debunks your claim: (I quote you) "'Keep' cannot mean anything other than 'own'",

I just showed you it can. Therefore your statement is debunked. But this is obvious to anybody with even moderate proficiency in English vocabulary. I was hoping for a more serious argument than that. Obviously this is the best you can do. So... thanks for trying... But I guess I'll have to wait and see if somebody shows up who can debate the text of the 2nd A with serious arguments.

 

Article 1 of the Constitution
...
Clause 16. 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,...​

I don't know if most militia members provided for their own guns or not. But, in any case, that's not what we are debating. The poster contends that the word "keep" in the idiom "to keep and bear arms" can only mean "to own". I showed that it can mean other things (and, most likely in this case, does). Not sure what the poster's point was, or why that mattered. But that was their only argument. So I debunked it.

 

I’ve provided text confirming “keep” certainly meant to apply to ownership since ownership was mandatory and the owner’s weapons were protected from seizure FOR ANY REASON.

If you don’t know if the firearms were owned by militia members or not why did you say this?

Providing information you know to be false or you make up out of thin air is why you will never be an effective debater or convince anyone of your ideas on gun control. If your argument hinges on false or made up information it is of no consequence except in your own mind. In fact, you do the gun control lobby a disservice by showing your arguments can not be trusted and are based on fallacies. Of course that makes me smile, you trashing the integrity of the gun control lobby.

By all means carry on. Trash the credibility of the gun control movement some more. Go...

 

We're discussing the text of the 2nd A. "Keep... arms" is possessing and keeping them in good working order. It means making sure that the arms are "well kept". It obviously has to do with possessing them, but has nothing to do, one way or the other, with ownership. If that were what they were referring to, it's reasonable to assume they would have used a term similar to the one used in the 3rd A.

What is relevant is that the scope of the 2nd A is limited to a military scenario in which a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. This is proven by an analysis of Corpus Linguistics, a database composed of practically all documents written around the period, shows that, by far, the word "keep" in relation to "arms" was used in a military sense. There were a handful of entries in which it referred to private ownership. However, the text of the 2nd A makes it clear, both by the mention of "a well regulated militia" and the fact that it's followed by "bear arms" (which is an expression only used in military/war scenarios), that they were referring to the military sense.

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment/

Law passed after the Bill of Rights was passed are irrelevant to discussing the text in the Bill of Rights. And they respond to the political environment at the time. Not on constitutional articles that were meant to last... forever.

As for the phrase in parenthesis, given the text I quoted from Article 1 of the Constitution, I interpreted that to mean that the government provided or financed most of the weapons used by "a well regulated militia". But on closer analysis, it doesn't necessarily determine whether it's "most" or not; if we were intent on splitting hairs. But it's not, in the least, relevant at all to the text of the 2nd A.

 

Strawman? Not even close. I asked for your opinion and did not challenge one I created for you. You have no issue with armed protection for cash/valuables but draw the line at a mother transporting her children. Her 105 pounds is no match for a 210 pound rapist/murder even if he does not have a gun.

Is your position that it is not as common and therefor disarming them is justified? I could expand that to astronomical odds and still end up ahead on value of human life compared to cash.

Since it is just a forum discussion, we can talk about all firearms magically disappearing. Its a fun idea, but in reality, the laws your party pushes only provide criminals with easy, unarmed victims.

 

This it the time on Sprockets when you deliberately misunderstand an argument because you know you cannot address the points put to you.

You offer that "...to keep..." does not mean "...to own..." because it can mean "...to possess..." or "...to maintain..."
In all of your nonsense revolving around this ridiculousness, you fail to address the point:
"Keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess anything you do not own - you can be granted the -privilege- but not the right.
The fact the 2nd protects the -right- to "keep" arms negates any other possible interpretations, all of which necessitate that said possession is a privilege granted by someone else.
You have yet to meaningfully address this, because you know you cannot.

As someone who took a long time to research the validity of his arguments, I expected better.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to true, if for no ohter reason that you cannot have a right to 'possess' or 'maintain' an item owned by someone else.

 

I’m interested in truth Golem, not your opinions. It’s a fact militia were to purchase and own their own weapons. You claimed the weapons were mostly owned by government and allowed to be taken home. That’s a grave error with much consequence to all other opinions you offer. If you can’t be trusted to adhere to the truth on who owns the firearms in question there is no reason to believe anything you say that follows that misinformation/disinformation. Only you know for sure if it’s misinformation or disinformation, but either way, the demonstrable fact accuracy of information you provide is not a priority for you harms your argument and makes all others who espouse your beliefs appear uneducated at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.

You are clearly here to misinform, be it intentional or just a lack of general knowledge on topics you discuss. I am here to point out your grave errors and demonstrate for the rest of PF truth and correct information are not your forte.

Carry on.

 

No.
You -claim- that the term in context -could- mean other things - which might be true, if the 2nd amendment did not protect the RIGHT to "keep" arms.
As you cannot have a right to do anything with property you do not own, your claims can hold no water.

As someone who took a long time to research the validity of his arguments, I expected better.

 

I have no issue with professionals (cops, security personnel, hunters, biathlon athletes, ...) carrying guns when it's necessary. This must be in a restricted way, after a lot of scrutiny into their psychological background and criminal records. Passing rigorous periodic training and testing. If, in a world without guns in the hands of the public, a mother shows reasonable evidence demonstrating that she has the need to carry a firearm, that no alternative exists to address whatever motive that is, and passes the same rigorous tests and scrutiny ... go for it!

The world isn't perfect. But it is most definitely less perfect with guns than without them.

 

No I didn't! Your argument was based on the premise that "own" was the only possible meaning of "keep".

This is YOU

I have proven that it CAN mean something other than "own". Your premise has been debunked. Thanks for playing...

 

In this context it is. for the reason I gave, which you have not addressed

"Keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess anything you do not own - you can be granted the -privilege- but not the right.
The fact the 2nd protects the -right- to "keep" arms negates any other possible interpretations, all of which necessitate that said possession is a privilege granted by someone else.

You have yet to meaningfully address this, because you know you cannot.

As it took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected better from you.

 

False! When you lease a car, you possess it and are obligated to provide maintenance to it.

One more of your premises debunked.

I don't even know what point you are trying to make. But all your premises leading up to... whatever that is... have fallen flat. So it really doesn't matter, does it?

 

You mean a leased or rented car.
You have the privilege to possess it, not the right, granted by someone else in the terms of your contract.
As the 2nd protects the "right " to keep and bear arms, any and every example you provide of a privilege to possess something is immaterial.

You do, and you are trying very hard to avoid it., through your feigned ignorance and willful failure to understand.

As it took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected better from you.

 

Can you name one law that prevents criminals from getting a gun? What if this lady's "reasonable evidence" is only that she wants to live?

CCW holders are no danger to others and Los Angeles does not issue CCWs to ordinary citizens. There is already a preview of what you propose. Are we safer as a result?

BTW, I shoot along side of law enforcement at my local range and in spite of their "rigorous" training, most are middle of the road marksman.

 

This statement is false.
Disagree?
Cite / copy / paste the text where Scalia said this.

 

You are talking nonsense. The 2nd A does not say or imply that in any way.

As for the rest... it is so irrelevant... The government (specifically Congress) has the power to provide for arming the militia. Whether they actually do or not is absolutely irrelevant to the 2nd A.

You want me to acknowledge that I misspoke when I said (in parenthesis) that the government provided most of the arms? Is that it? Sure. I retract my statement. I actually don't know if the government provided "most" or not. I am unashamed about retracting anything I say when I realize, either that I'm wrong or, as in this case, I don't actually know if I'm wrong or not.

Hope this serves as an example to you.

 

If you do not know if your statement is wrong or not, why do you make it?

As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, shouldn't we expect better?

 

In what way does that change anything of what I said in the paragraph you quoted?

Oh... I see. You're sticking to that nonsense that anybody who has ever leased or even rented a car knows is nonsense. Or rented a house or an apartment. Or ... many other things in which you have a right to do many things, so long as you maintain them in good working order (or keep).

Your statement is nonsense that is obvious to any reader, no matter on what side of the gun issue they stand.