And so do you. Nope, not all sorts. Just slightly different than what you want for infringements. As I have said over and over, it's just a line in the sand.
I saw a very interesting take on the 2A. The argument basically goes - Article One of the Constitution charges Congress to raise and trial a militia. Somewhere along the line someone said - "if we're gonna raise a militia, shouldn't they be armed?" Hence the Second, in other words: "Since we need to have a militia, maybe we should let them have arms". Remember a "militia" is not a standing army - something the colonists weren't in favor of.
Probably because it was a basic assumption. Household weapons were more common than indoor plumbing. Source?
More that what? You have infringements, I have infringements. The country has infringements. IT'S A LINE IN THE SAND!!
Article I Section 8 gives the government authority to arm the militia. The fear was that the government would abuse its authority by first declining to arm the militia itself, and then second arguing that no one else has the authority to arm the militia. The right of free people to keep and bear arms had been around for thousands of years, and one of its effects would be to allow the militia to be armed regardless of government neglect, so they ensured that the Constitution protected this longstanding right.
The problem is when infringements cross over that line. The left always wants infringements that cross over the line.
Which is why I often use the gun control issue as a litmus test when evaluating candidates. When one is will to rationalize and nuance away the individual right of self defence, they have reveal the propensity for doing the same with any right and therefore I can no longer assign them any level of confidence or trust. The Democratic party once defended slavery. But, Ivalways remember the line in from the movie, The Usual suspects ‘The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.’ I equate that with Democrates, once the champions of slavey and from which the KKK merged, and the party that opposed the civil rights movement of the 60’wanting folks to believe they are protecting black from the evil, racist republican party (the party conceived to push ending slavery in the 1860’s to the point of fighting a war on the issue. So when I think South that qoutm I think the devel in nothing compared to the Democratic party. So to believe in the Democratic party on any issue related to gun control, The deomorratc Party has been on the long game for banning guns in the US; they have been using to long term strategy mapped out by Britian. Do Don’t believe it, then read this before I tie it back to the quotes bypete Shields that defined the approach by using seeking to vilify and ban assault rifles as the beginning steps in a bigger picture strategy. So this first; https://guncite.com/journals/okslip.html this Then aster read iing that and Consider in the last ban nobody could define what an assaul weapon
Sorry posted before I had completed composing my post. Second article https://reason.com/2013/07/18/why-second-amendment-supporters-are-righ/ No shields outlined his strategy for leveraging the public’s confusion over assault rifles back a decade or more earlier where he discussed the conflation of semi auto weapons with fully automatic ones.’ I am still trying to find the published ‘shield plan for banning guns’, I read it once, but can't find a free version to post. There is so much ignorance of guns out there propogated by Hollywood and the mass media that it is easy to manipulate perception and, further, demonize those with knowledge as ‘right wing gun nuts’ ‘elmer fudds’ willing to trade children's lives to owning guns. In a field of ignorance, lies become facts.
The following is a pretty good history that goes a bit into the elements of historic context most of the Founding Fathers would have been versed with. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr
No, just have the line change. That's why its the line in the sand. Everyone has their very own line. Even you, probably.
this is weasel words for you trying to pretend your obvious anti gun cravings are no worse than those of us who say it is proper for the government to ban prisoners from having firearms or kids buying claymore mines
The only line that counts is the one that the Founding Fathers drew. Progressives try to draw the line somewhere else because they hate our freedom.
They didn't need to "let them have arms". People in the well regulated militia had arms. Just like they had pants and shirt.... It was a given. And it would have been as absurd to make an Amendment to enshrine a "right to own weapons", as it would have been to have one to grant a "right to own pants". Your response clearly shows that you didn't read the OP. What are you afraid of? Worried that your long held dogma will be forever obliterated?
Exactly!!!! And for EXACTLY that reason, they felt no need to write a Constitutional Amendment about it. It's all explained in the OP. Which you obviously refuse to read. My source is on the OP. Read it!!!!
Once was enough. You make a lot of assertions, few if any actually supported by citation. You seem to be implying that individual ownership was such a "well, no shi*" that the framers felt no need to specifically cite it; "keep and bear" covers it. And your explanation why that wouldn't be the case these days is weak.
Forum rules state that references, links, quotes... should be used to support a point. Not to make the point for you. If you have a point to make, I'll be happy to read it. But I am not interested in debating with people who are not here to defend what they write.
No! You didn't read it once. Because your arguments are EXACTLY the same as mine. But you are not understanding why those arguments make my point. It's explained on the OP, in case you want to read them. I don't care if you do or don't. Because either way my case is made. And YOU helped me make it.
Luckily the Anti-Federalists were wise enough to foresee that people would try to violate our civil liberties in the future, so they insisted on the creation of the Bill of Rights in order to protect our civil liberties.
If they had, they would have written "own weapons", instead of "bear arms", which at the time only referred to a military scenario. And they wouldn't have included the reference to the well regulated militia.
Were you there? Did you live in that day and age? Your "they would . . ." assertions are unfounded, bordering on ludicrous. "own weapons" vs "bear arms"? Seriously? They're listing individual rights not contingent on militia membership. You concede above that in those times personal fire arms were the rule, not the exception.
And yet.. we know... How do we know? The same way we know that the Earth is not flat despite the fact that I've never been out in space. It's called "deductive reasoning" A concept completely foreign to too many on the extreme right. We know all these things because of what they write. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Nice try. Deductive reasoning requires proof and facts. Your methodology is more like building a strawman.
