No sir. It was a reply to your far reaching interpretation of the Second Amendment. For those who make slaughtering the second amendment a hobby, there are many quotes from our founding fathers that make the intentions clear. Shall I post them again?
We both agree it's ridiculous, so it doesn't actually matter why you brought it up. In any case, I'm not interpreting the 2nd A. I'm just explaining what the idiom "keep and bear arms" meant at the time the Bill of Rights was framed. The rest is about you trying to change the subject.
My posts are 100% on topic and there is a long list of quotes from our founders on the subject. Shall I post them again?
I believe it was you who posted before a long list of quotes, some made up, and the rest absolutely irrelevant to any of these threads. If you have ONE demonstrating the "keep and bear arms" used in a context other than the military (which is the topic of this thread), post just that one. Don't try to hid behind spam-loads of unrelated and made up quotes. If you don't, spare us your nonsense. And the same if you don't know what the word ONE means.
This thread is your nonsense. Heres one for you: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Are you not paying attention? I'm talking about the 2nd A. Not the Virginia Constitution. You have proven my point that you have NO quote to rebut what I said in the OP. Now, the fact that you say it was a "draft" means that nothing of the sort ever made it to the Virginia constitution. Much less the U.S. Constitution. So individuals at the time can believe whatever the hell they want. What matters is what they managed to pass through Congress. Both Virginia's and the U.S.. And that didn't pass either.
Still sticking to your lost argument? Fascinating. Do you think history will change through your sheer force of will?
I paid attention and responded directly with relevant information. Your position is nothing more than wordplay and when the numerous quotes from our founders enter the discussion combined with the events at the time, the spirit of the second amendment is clear. You're almost up to 20 pages of not fooling anyone. Keep up the good work!
Well, the sentiment against standing armies faded when they created the National Gaurd, which is a standing army, eh? Militias often had amateurs, undisciplined folks, who, against a foreign threat of trained armies, wouldn't be as effective as a trained, disciplined army, so that sentiment faded over time in favor of standing armies, which is what we have today. Your claim was so, and was the conventional wisdom until Heller. The only reason individuals have a 'constitutional right' is due to Heller. It was accepted that people own arms, use them for hunting and defense, but they never put it into the constitution as an 'individual right', and the whole reason 2A was written, was to appease Virginia, who wanted the language in there so that the federal government couldn't undo their militia/slave patrols by regulating gun ownership. They needed the amendment so they were guaranteed they could control slavery, uprisings, that sort of thing. At least that is my understanding of it. Like any SCOTUS ruling, it can be undone. Stare Decisis has more weight, the older the ruling, but Heller is fairly new, isn't it? Yes, indeed. Scalia gutted the notion that the 2a, as written, the former clause was uncoupled to the latter clause. However, from a grammatical point, if that were the intent, it wouldn't have been written that way, so Scalia's logic doesn't make sense, to me, anyway.
In the days of muskets, that might have meant something, but in the days of tanks, F 22s, howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, nuclear bombs, B-52a, and a 2 million strong military, plus a very stable government, that idea is rather silly.
There is nothing in the constitution that says a state cannot put it in its own constitution. So the quote doesn't affect the US Constitution.
It doesn't make sense to linguists or historians either. The most renown experts on those two social sciences have amply rebutted Scalia's linguistics and historic arguments. Scalia was a powerhouse in the legal field. But he had to delve into two topics he knew nothing about. And that revealed that he had become one of the most activist justices this country has ever seen.
There was no individual right to bear arms until Heller, it was the whole reason for Heller , the uncoupling of the two clauses of 2a. Before that, as I understand it, the conventional wisdom was the military militia aspect. Now, 2A would not preclude any state from guaranteeing it at the individual level in their own state, but that is not at issue. Note that, even if we do assert 2a does guarantee the 'right' to keep and bear arms, and i'm willing to accept that interpretation, it's just that 'shall not be infringed', the term 'infringed' means that the right, itself, shall not be infringed. The regulation of gun ownership does not infringe on the right as long as you are allowed to keep and bear arms. For example, outlawing sawed off shut guns does not infringe on the right, you can still own a shotgun, just one that is not sawed off. SCOTUS has determined that the right to bear arms is not absolute. I believe that was also stated in Heller.
You said his argument was refuted. When you make a claim like that, it is courtesy to link to the SCOTUS ruling that refuted it, which is what I assume you meant. It is courtesy to make your responses clear, you are not commenting in a private conversation where only two persons understand what is being said.
Heller endorsed all of the claims made in the 2nd Amendment. It is easier to support Guns for individuals than abortion for individuals.
There is nothing in the Constitution about eating watermelons either so does that mean you can't eat them if in the state constitution? Your and Golems arguments failed big time in Heller. Heller did not create a right, it only said it exists due to the 2nd Amendment. I argue the right to defend yourself is not needed in the constitution yet there it is. I mean of course we all have the right to defend ourselves. My gun can keep me from being harmed.
It is like the so called lost cause of the Civil War. We have Democrats so furious at the 2nd amendment, they refuse to believe what it says.
When Abe invaded Virginia, he had asked Governors to supply him with his army. Believe it or not, the Governors called up farmers and others that did manual labor who were not soldiers at all. They liked person A so they elected him an officer. They were not trained at all. They were not a well regulated militia. This horse crap it was for a well trained militia is a diversion. The controlling words are the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That was not advice, it was an order. Heller contains the words it was not a new right, it was already in the 2nd amendment as Heller says.
Golem, please explain to me and others just why you do not want to defend rights? The 2nd amendment is one of the rights. But you refuse to defend it. You want it to be a right for others. It is a right for citizens.
FALSE! First of all, Thomas Jefferson never said that. It was a proposal (documented by Jefferson, but not of his authoring) that was voted down during the discussions of the Virginia Constitution. Furthermore the complete quote was "“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements.” Gun fanatics always remove the last part. The idea being that you could shoot anybody if you caught them in your house, and the law could not touch you. But again, it never even made it into the Virginia constitution. Meaning that.... somebody proposed it... but the framers of that constitution did not agree with it. You have been posting fabricated quotes since the start of this thread and I have debunked them all. When will you realize that whatever source you are using it just lying to you! I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this type of fabricated nonsense that you keep posting. Just so you know...
You've been provided with plenty of other quotes which clearly debunk your argument. Including other state constitutions from the time. “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson quote about Gun Control
I would judge, due to my personal legal training in College, that amendment you claim is limited is why it got voted down. It was too narrow and very specific. Guns are a right much more broadly. Give you comparisons. Your clothing is personal property. Your furniture is. Your works of art are personal. Guns are also personal property. Personal property is a right we all have. And if the property is a gun, it makes no difference. The constitution did not ban humans from owning guns. (see second amendment) A very practical way to learn Gun ownership and use is a right is to casually enter stores selling guns. Casually go to gun shows. Casually check into GunsAmerica. They sell guns daily. https://www.gunsamerica.com/ We could not purchase any gun were it not one of our rights.
You are right about the "Heller" opinion also stating that "the right to bear arms" not being an "absolute right." That, in itself destroys much of the pro-gun argument. The Virginian's at the Convention were pretty much the "white elitists" of their day...Washington, who well understood the necessity for a well disciplined armed force controlled by the government...certainly had no reason to put guns in the hands of the "rabble," most of who weren't even qualified to vote. [Remember, a major reason Washington was at the Convention as its presiding officer was Shay's Rebellion.] Madison's Constitutional scheme was to create a "super governing body" superior to the individual States and initially opposed a Bill of Rights as superfluous, believing that such should be left to the States themselves (and most State Constitutions contained separate Bills of Rights). However, the anti-federalists used the lack of a Bill of Rights as a reason NOT to ratify the Constitution and when Madison's own close friend Jefferson agreed, Madison and the Federalists yielded and promised a Bill of Rights as the first Constitutional amendments in order to secure ratification (which was actually a rather close call). IMO, the "militia clause" was very intentional and purposely designed to "limit" the "mob" from the possession of arms that could be used to overthrow the federal government. Scalia got it wrong...although the decision gave SCOTUS the right to determine what gun controls would be constitutional and which would not be constitutional. Not too surprising that "the mob" would run with that and expand it into an "absolute right."
