Again, I’ve directly addressed and refuted your arguments. We are 4 pages in and all you warrant is a reminder that your interpretations have no basis in law or in grammar. Which is why your argument has lost every single time it’s been tried in court.
You must have missed my question. I'll ask again. Let's say the Republicans are in power. The Republican government selects a group of Republicans to form a militia. Can that militia go house to house confiscating the guns of Democrats, since the Democrats are not in the militia?
I didn't miss your question. I'm just concerned that, if I answer it, somebody might interpret that to mean that I take it seriously. I don't. I answer all questions that are on-topic. And since "confiscating guns" has absolutely nothing to do with this thread (or, for that matter, ANY post of mine in ANY topic whatsoever regarding guns), it's best that you make your point... if you have one, that is.
The founders took seriously a question about a Republican government forming a militia to go house to house and confiscate guns from Democrats???? Does your nonsense know any limits at all?
This is where you constantly go off the rails. Not thanks to the Heller decision, Thanks to the Constitution 1. The Heller case UPHELD the 2nd amendment AS WRITTEN. It wasn't legislation, laws passed by anyone, or an amendment to the Constitution. The SCOTUS agreed with the meaning of the 2nd amendment as written. 2. Scalia didn't pass anything. The vote was 5-4 UPHOLDING the 2nd amendment. 3. The SCOTUS UPHELD that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home AS WRITTEN. Which means, since the day of its inception. Not starting in 2008. lol As for the rest of your post its nothing but opinion and wordsmithing. But feel free to award yourself your magical win (as you do in most post)
I had some free time. I did your research for you. The debate at the time was over whether the federal government should have the power to raise and maintain a standing army, whether the federal government should have the power to direct the military force of the militia; whether they should have both powers, one of them, or neither. There is copious documentation of these debates. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s15.html Here we can see Hamilton's concern that without a standing army, the militia would be overburdened in times of peace, and would in fact constitute a standing army anyway. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s27.html Here, Mason is clear with his concerns about standing armies and their ability to disarm the people, and the only defense against this is the people's right to form a militia. He's a militia only kind of guy.
Henry responds: So who's going to keep the militia in check? Nicholas sums up the conundrum here: Brutus pipes up with his own concerns: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s20.html Definitely not a fan of the Federal government having the power to direct an armed force. He argues more here against such power. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s23.html
Madison proposes that the people have to have the power to command the militia in opposition to the threat posed by a standing army. If you hop on over to Federalist No. 10 you can see Madison's arguments about what to do regarding the mischief of faction. It's a good read, but if you're looking for TLDR he concludes: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/p...Yg2sb1YtDnsbHVbVaMV_cPeAK-hcHzRcaAiOsEALw_wcB So of course he thought the same principle would be effective in the administration of defense. If you asked him, there's no doubt he would have expressed a concern that one faction might seek to disarm a rival faction given the power to do so, and that the only solution was to decentralize that authority to do so.
Then you should be able to explain why the very rare instances in which an individual "right" to own guns for personal use came up during the discussions directly leading to the 2nd A, proposals were voted down, as addressed on the OP. What's that say?.... You can't? Well... then my case is made. Thanks for playing.
Bingo! And that's what the 2nd A was about. Not about protecting some individual right to own guns for personal use. But to protect the right of the people to defend their country as part of a well regulated militia. You could have spared all the time you spent doing that research by simply reading the OP.
Another one of your self inflicted magical wins? lol You mean the part that says, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? If they meant the right of the militia, they would have said the right of the militia. If they meant the right of the military, they would have said the right of the military. But they didn't, they said, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. You want everyone to think the founding fathers were so dumb they didn't know the difference just because you decided to come up with your own definition of bear arms means? Laughable. Or were you referring to the SCOTUS stipulating that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense? You actually think just because you came up with a little wordsmithing of what YOU think bear arms means that YOU are smarter than the founding fathers and the SCOTUS? You do make us all belly laugh. Just an FYI for those anti gun nuts out there. The shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force. Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression. But of course, you must be much more intelligent than the debating fathers of our constitution as you would imply. When you actually get caught up on your history instead of anti gun nitwits who write their own definitions of what they want to interpret the constitution or the SCOTUS said, let us all know.
It's up to you. If you can quote any reference to an individual right to own weapons for personal use in the 2nd A, then you win. If you can't, my position wins. Simple as that. It would be idiotic to assume that the founders would approve an individual right to own weapons for personal use without ever mentioning it in their discussions leading up to the 2nd A. And it would be beyond idiotic to assume such when the few mentions of anything related to including such a right had, not only been voted down but, as I describe in the OP, even ridiculed. I see no quote in your post. But you could still prove me wrong. Go for it! Shove the quote in my face and make me eat it and my words! Once again (to make it abundantly clear): you would need to find a quote during the discussions leading to the 2nd A, in which it was clear that the framers were referring to an individual right to own guns for personal use.
I believe the supreme court has resolved virtually all of this. Americans clearly have the right to own and bear arms. All the fussing is an attempt to add exceptions to that fact. The laws that result from that fussing only limit law abiding citizens because criminals aren't impressed by laws. Some exceptions make sense. To me it makes sense to ban felons from buying guns legally. It makes sense that the criminally insane be barred from buying guns. The problem is that the fussing is trying to continue to create exceptions until all legal gun purchases are excluded from the second amendment. More laws can't possibly reduce gun crime because criminals don't care about laws. Let's try to work on the criminally insane angle. That may help to some degree.
You mean like when they actually wrote it in the 2nd Amendment? The Right of the PEOPLE? There are no assumptions made. That is a declaration. The ONLY assumptions being made are by you. This is your argument? So by your measure, since banning Slavery was ridiculed and voted down, it would be idiotic to think they actually banned Slavery? You're gonna need a bigger boat than that. Yeah, You did. The right of the people to bear arms is quoted directly from the Constitution. Just because you don't think it means what it means, is no evidence it doesn't. As a matter of fact, even the SCOTUS ruled that it means EXACTLY what it states. You have provided no quotes or evidence that the founding fathers argued your interpretation of anything. You are the one making such claim so its up to you to prove it. Show us where they subscribed to the meaning of the people being ANYTHING other than the population of this country. You can't, you know why? Because you are the one using assumptions asking everyone to prove you wrong when in fact, the proof is right in front of you. When you can convince everyone that the founding fathers were so dumb as to not know the meaning of (The right or the people to keep and bear arms) or how this could possibly be interpreted as anything other than your assumptions, you let us know.
But... looks like you actually admit that the only response you have to my arguments is an attempt to change the subject. This thread is about the historical background leading to the 2nd A. If you want to discuss something else... open your own thread. Likely I will just give you a link to one of the threads where I already spoke about the Scalia legislation. In the mean time.... What's this? No quotes? Surprise... surprise... Thanks for playing....
1. As soon as you explain to everyone why you thought that an individual right to own arms was due to the Heller decision. 2. As soon as you explain to everyone why you thought the Heller decision was legislation and not a decision to uphold the Constitution as written. 3. As soon as you explain to everyone why you thought Scalia is the one who passed such law instead of a 5-4 decision to uphold the constitution. Since those are your claims, we would love to hear how you arrived at such nonsense.
That's right. The right of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to defend the free state. It says nothing about personal use. And you still haven't shown a quote indicating that they intended the 2nd A to address some right to use weapons for personal use in the 2nd A. Your case just keeps getting weaker and weaker. And it will continue getting weaker until it disappears into nothingness unless you can provide such quote.
you are inserting a meaning to the amendment that simply doesn't exist, as you have been shown. hes already quoted it. The right OF THE PEOPLE. There is no requirement that a person be part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms, as you've also been shown.
Since my questions do apply to your OP DIRECTLY, that would conclude that you can't answer the question so instead you tried to change the subject. I will reference it for you as you have somehow conveniently forgot what you wrote. So (AGAIN) Explain to everyone why you thought that an individual right to own arms was due to the Heller decision. Explain how you came to the conclusion that the Heller decision was legislation, and not a decision to uphold the Constitution as written, even though it actually states that in the decision. Explain how this was legislation (Not a decision to uphold the Constitution) and explain how is was passed by Scalia. Are these questions too tough for you? Since none of your first post in your own OP have any merit, and they are just bold faced propaganda, and you have no ability to explain you own declarations in your own OP, it would be useless to go any further. So are you going to answer the question directed at your own OP, or are you going to try and divert from being accountable for your own post. I already know which path you will take and so does everyone else.
Now you're just making stuff up again. It doesn't say that. It says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Which is a statement unto itself the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Which is a second separate declaration. NOWHERE does it claim The right of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to defend the free state. The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is a right for people to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense. No amount of word twisting by you will change the exact meaning of that statement. Oh yeah, I forgot, will not be infringed.
I have said nothing about a "requirement". Being part of a militia is a RIGHT. It's the right the 2nd A protects!
