Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Fair enough. I agree on the rabbit issue.

"The people" in the First Amendment are unassembled individuals who may peaceably assemble, or stay home.
"The people" in the Second Amendment are unassembled individuals who may be called to bring their weapons and assemble as militia, or not.

 

Please provide your support for this rationale. It does not exist in law.

The 2nd A is not just about military uses of arms. It is about the use and bearing of arms in common use for lawful purposes.

Not according to constitutional law, supreme court precedent, or the rules of grammar.

 

As this is the Constitutional statement.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It follows that we must also focus on Militia and state security when addressing the 2nd Amendment. That said we no longer rely on Militias so we look at the Arms aspect. So, we need to consider what level of armament should be regulated...is it Missiles and Bombs?

I believe the cut off should be where the weaponry goes beyond self protection and hunting animals while other believe no limitations should be in place. The problem seems to be finding a happy medium but extremists do not want to do so.

 

The WORD used is irrelevant. "Confer" or "provide for" or "affirm".... You got stuck on the semantics, and it's not relevant.

Well... I don't know if I agree with that. But then, if it's pre-existing, then we agree that the 2nd A doesn't provide it. And all this "2nd A rights" nonsense is ludicrous. Call it something like "the pre-existing right" and then we can (or maybe not) have a completely different debate.

Not a single thing that follows this contradicts my point. As a matter of fact, most of what you wrote reaffirms it.

But what's important (and very significant) is that you have not addressed this one simple fact. Which is that the 2nd A says that this is a right to keep bear arms because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Not to shoot rabbits, not for skeet shooting, not even to shoot at robbers.... I mean, it literally says that it's in effect in a military scenario. In plain English. What else is there?

I know it. I have had this discussion dozens of times. In all cases what the pro-gun person doesn't refer to is to the fact stated above: the actual words of the 2nd A. They defended the right of the people to keep and bear arms because they relied on a well regulated militia. So we can discuss whether or not militias are not necessary (or effective) today to ensure the security of a free state. I don't think they are. Unlike the in 18th century, now we do have effective armed forces to do that.

 

So you accept it? Or can you rebut it?

It doesn't limit anything. It grants, reaffirms, states, .... (I'll just use "grant" from now on) to the people who form part of a militia.

How so? The 2nd A doesn't "limit" the right of individuals (in general) to own guns anymore than the 1st or the 3rd or than... any amendment. it just doesn't address it. If the states or Congress or... God.... want to provide some right to own guns, that's up to them.

In the 18th Century people could own guns. Just like they owned any property: a house, a horse, a shirt.... Owning or not owning guns was just not a controversial issue. So they simply didn't bother to address a non-issue in the Bill of Rights. And they didn't!

The Bill of Rights ONLY addresses things that were relevant at the time. Such as whether or not people should be forced to give quarters in their home to a soldier in times of peace. That was immensely more important than whether or not people should be allowed to own weapons or to own shirts or to own horses...

That's a different topic. Which I already addressed on the first post I directed to you on this matter. I believe that what I explained there (the historians' position) makes complete sense. But when I stated it then it only served as a motive to change the subject.

Which is fine. And I am willing to change the subject once you either rebut or acknowledge that the text literally refers to a military scenario. This is not an interpretation, not an opinion.. . It literally says that in plain English.

That's not the topic. That was one possible answer to your question. One that makes sense to me. But in order to discuss that we have to start by understanding what the 2nd A says.

How could we possibly discuss why the 2nd A says what it says before you're clear on what it is that it says?

Well, you're wrong. Which is easily proven by the fact that this opinion was not even mine. It's the historians' opinion. So I have proven I am not "alone". Anything else you need me to prove?

No problem. That just means you didn't follow the Heller case as closely as I did. I read all the Amicus Briefs. At least the one by the linguists, the one by historians and another one that was in support of Heller. I think there were more, but those pretty much covered everything.

I'm confused. Then how is it possible you hadn't heard this argument? It's their argument. Anyway... this discussion is superfluous if we can't agree on the basic fact. Which is what it is that the 2nd A says.

No. It's not an "interpretation". It's what it says. That fact is what you haven't addressed.

As for the rest, I haven't even addressed who controlled the militias. Sorry but... I reiterate, it's not possible to go to other topics if you can't even acknowledge that the 2nd A says what it literally says.

I guess I have been brought up in a "scientific mentality" environment. In Science, what is observed rules. Reality is what nature shows. You can make theories and hypothesis about WHY what is observed is the way it is, but they must all respond to what was observed in nature.

It's as if you were trying to convince me that birds cannot possibly fly. And you go into all these physical formulas, and the law of gravity, and aerodynamics and so on. I just point up to the sky to a bird flying. And you respond "Yes, I understand your interpretation that the bird is flying, but you have to respond to my arguments based on physics proving that birds can't fly"

If we can't agree on the factual observation that birds fly, what purpose would there be in discussing why they can or can't fly? In the same way, if we can't agree that the 2nd A says what it literally says in plain English, what purpose would there be in discussing why it says what it says.

 

Not according to the text of the 2nd A. It says that the right to "bear arms" (it doesn't say "own guns") is granted because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That sounds pretty relevant to me. Relevant enough to include it.

 

It exists in the 2nd A. I'm only talking about the 2nd A.

It's not what the 2nd A says. Again: I'm only talking about the 2nd A

 

specifically according to the text of the amendment, as evidenced by several supreme court rulings. You have no basis for your interpretation. Not in the law, or by the rules of grammar.

guns are arms. And it's a preface to the fact that the individuals right to keep and bear arms (guns) is the right secured, not the militias. Militias are entirely irrelevant.

you need your hearing checked then. What "sounds" relevant to you is meaningless. The courts have routinely shown you otherwise, as do the rules of grammar. The right to keep and bear arms (guns) has nothing to do with any service in a militia.

 

Which has been refuted. See DC v Heller. So again, your interpretation does not exist in law, or by the rules of grammar.

it's specifically what is says.

which protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms, in common use, for lawful purposes. You have no basis in law to support your interpretation, nor by the rules of grammar.

 

Justices are great in law. Not so great at linguistics. Linguists might not be as good at laws. But they are great at linguistics. And all linguists of any relevance agree that the language is clear, and it does not grant a right to own guns.

By the laws, I haven't opined. By grammar, most definitely.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"...keep and bear arms...". It does not say "own weapons". And only as long as a well regulated militia is necessary. It no longer is.

They are when used in a military sense. All texts at the time the Bill of Rights was written show that when "bear arms" is used with no other qualifiers, they are referring to military use.

 

Heller is a legal decision. Not based on the science of linguistics.

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_linguists1.pdf

Attorneys refuting linguists would be like medical doctors refuting rocket science.

Try again. Or don't... Up to you.

 

Again, the rules of grammar in addition to constitutional law show otherwise.

As the amendment states; being a member of the militia has nothing to do with keeping and bearing arms. It is an individual right, not a militia right.

.
they are in any sense.

No it doesn’t.

 

Based on both linguistics, grammar, and constitutional al law. It’s why your interpretation doesn’t exist anywhere outside of your head.

I don’t need to try again. I already won. It’s settled law. You lost.

 

What law of grammar are you talking about? I will copy-paste what I wrote in a previous post.

In English, when the verb in a prefatory clause (to use Scalia's term) ends in -ing, there is a causal relation between it and the main clause when the verb is stative. In other words, the prefatory clause is a necessary CAUSE of the main clause. For example

"The ship having arrived, the passengers can embark"
The passenger cannot embark (main clause), if the ship hasn't arrive (prefatory clause)

"Standing on a chair, John can reach the ceiling"
John cannot reach the ceiling (main clause), unless he stands on a chair (prefatory clause)

"Books being necessary for the students to complete the project, the Library shall not close"
The Library can close (main clause), as soon as the books are not necessary for the students to complete the project (prefatory clause).

In all instances, the prefatory clause is the CAUSE of the main clause. Absent the cause, the effect does not follow.

Therefore...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the..., the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The right to keep and bear arms can be infringed (main clause), when the militia is not necessary to the security of a free state (prefatory clause)

Plain basic English 101

Hopefully you can respond with something more meaningful than "not it isn't". Otherwise, that settles the discussion.

 

WTF? That was your argument? Of course it's settled law! I haven't said otherwise.

What I'm saying is that it is not settled by the text of the 2nd A. It was settled by legislation passed by activists in the Supreme Court. Most notably by activist justice Antonin Scalia. But "settled" it is... For now, at least.

Looks like you have been debating but you didn't even know what the debate was about.

 

Refuted this already. Your interpretation has no basis in law or in grammar. It’s why your argument lost in court, every single time it’s been tried.

 

Great. Then you acknowledge your position is baseless and has no basis in law or grammar.

Which is demonstrably false.

You seek to have no understanding of basic civics. The judiciary had no mechanism to legislate.

The debate has been about your incorrect
Interpretation of the second amendment that has no basis in law or grammar. It’s why you lost.

 

I accept that is your interpretation. I have argued that the interpretation is invalid and can protect nothing from the power of Congress. That is the main part of my rebuttal.

I am still waiting for a response to it.

My friend, I fear you have it backwards. These Amendments were not written to limit rights. They were written to protect individual rights from the power of the federal Government. You cannot tell me how your interpretation of the Amendment protects anything from the power of Congress to deny it to the people. This is the issue you are avoiding.

Now of your position that the Amendment was intended to protect against state neglect, when challenged you claimed it was the opinion of the “historian’s” amicus brief. I again challenged you on it, and your latest answer is:

Because no one else has ever made it.

No, it’s not.

Ah, but you are alone on this my friend. And you, of all people, should understand that merely claiming “I have proven it” does not make it so, particularly when I have already quoted this brief to the opposite effect.

Yes. I want to know—when you deride others for not having done their own research—and when I quote your “historian’s” brief back at you to show that you are wrong, that they never agreed with your position, and that you do not at all understand what they are saying—I want to know why you cannot accept this.

So yes, I will take you up on your offer to prove something to me.

Prove which of us understands your own research better. Go ahead and quote me a single sentence from the “historians” amicus brief that shows they agreed with you. If you can.

There were several others. Just on your side of the issue alone there was the brief on behalf of the District of Columbia itself which you have forgotten. Another example from your side of the issue would be the brief supported by several municipalities.

But however many we claim to have read, clearly for each of us the bare claim to have “read” them does not automatically demonstrate proof that we have understood them. That proof comes from demonstrating an accurate knowledge of what they actually said—and this is proof you inexplicably refuse to show.

I again tell you that you simply do not understand the “historians” brief. I quoted it to you yesterday to help you understand how you have it wrong—how these historians did NOT agree with your belief that the purpose of the Amendment was to protect the militia from state neglect.

I cite my sources—in this case your very own—because you frequently complain that others expect you to accept what they say without showing any source or research. And yet here you are, again, demonstrating no ability to quote your own research in support of your claim that they agree with you when confronted with direct evidence from your own research to the contrary. How else am I to interpret this behavior other than you simply do not understand it?

I again invite you to quote the brief to me and show me where I have it wrong. If you can.

I will agree with the first sentence of this statement. Yes, the BoR did not address irrelevant things. But your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders any “right of the people” unenforceable against—and thus incapable of being protected from—the power of Congress to deny it. Your interpretation renders the RKBA irrelevant.

I will not do your research for you, and your unsupported statement is not self-proving. I suggest you are engaging in the very conduct you deride in others when you merely claim that “it supports me” and expect me to accept this without offering any shred of argument or analysis.

Give me your analysis of how it “reaffirms” your point.

 

We can certainly have that discussion after you decide to honor your word and actually address my criticism of your main argument. I am sorry but I view this as an attempted diversion away from my attack on your interpretation.

They only reply I have found from you that even acknowledges the attack I made upon your entire argument is itself an evasion of it:

No, my friend. That was my position from the very first post I made in this thread. If you did not want to engage me on that topic then you should not have replied to it. But you did, and you have said you would address any argument against it. I gave you my argument showing your interpretation was a train wreck of inoperability, and you have been steadily avoiding addressing that fatal weakness in your interpretation ever since.

And now I see you wish to further justify your evasion by the diversionary tactic of accusing me of having evaded the actual wording of the amendment:

Which I see pleased you enough to repeat this claim here:

and here:

and here:

Come now, my friend. If you are unwilling to answer questions, then at least do me the common courtesy of not pretending that I have failed to answer yours.

I have addressed this. I gave you some—but not all—of my research and analysis on the militia clause. In response to your suggestion that I do so, I gave you an argument—supported by research—for the specific origin of the militia clause, its meaning, the reason why it was included in the Amendment, and its effect. I did so in post #237 in this thread for which—since it was posted slightly more than 48 hours ago—the passage of time should not have been sufficient to have erased it from your memory.

It is one thing for you to have ignored something I have said, or even to have failed to comprehend it. If either is the case, then I invite you to read what I said and ask me any questions you like about it.

However, if you did read and understand it, then let me say I would find it disappointingly disingenuous of you to repeatedly make an intentionally false claim that have not addressed the wording of the Amendment, and that you find it “very significant” that I have not addressed it, when you know full well that the truth is otherwise.

 

Sir Winston Churchill said it well when he said “I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts company for the time with reality.”

Yet I do not believe your false criticism was done merely for the sake of emphasis, but rather for the sake of diversion away from my argument. I have no idea if you sound anything at all like Sir Alec Guinness. But even if you do (which would be kind of cool), I must say this attempt to waive your hand over your keyboard while saying “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” will simply not work.

This is the argument we have been having, my friend—the one you have decided to avoid: My attack on the unworkability of your interpretation of the 2nd A. This is an attack I launched from my very first post. I will say it again: If you did not want to confront it, then you should not have responded to my invitation to debate that issue.

I am glad you did respond, for I believed then (and still believe) that the possibility exists for you to engage me and at least give me an answer beyond “no you’re wrong, I can’t tell you why, but I know you are wrong.” I am taking this much time with you because I really do want to have this discussion. For the life of me I can’t understand your reticence to defend your argument against my attack. I can’t understand why you would raise the gale and then refuse to come out of the harbor.

And I don’t want you to be viewed as using the same avoidance excuse you recently complained someone else was using:

I know your fingers are not stuck in your ears, and I know you have read my argument against your position.

So, for the 4th time, I tell you that your interpretation of the Amendment is fraudulent because it defines a right which the Constitution says cannot exist. I argue that you cannot defend your interpretation by telling me how it works to protect any “right of the people” from the power of Congress to deny it. I argue your inability to explain this fatal flaw in your interpretation is what exposes it as an illegitimate interpretation.

This is not a side issue, a diversion, or a changing of the topic. From my first post until this last, I have consistently challenged your belief in the correctness of your interpretation by arguing it does not and cannot work—and I have asked you dig into all the research you claim to have done and find an answer that is capable of repelling this attack on the very foundation of your entire argument.

I ask you to honor your word and answer this attack on your interpretation with your analysis of why I would be wrong.

And before you hit the “reply” button again let me say this:

I believe the “reply” button contemplates a reply to what was said rather than just being a method of determining who gets to speak last—whether relevantly or not. A true reply addresses my argument. When I attack the logic of your position (as I have done), then merely restating your position over and over again as if it is somehow self-proving in spite of the attack against it is not a credible reply. Instead, it is an exercise of mere repetition by which one hopes to drown out the attack against it. You know this.

Listen, if you don’t want to answer, then it’s okay to tell me. We can find other things to talk about, or we can go our separate ways.

If you can’t understand my argument, then it’s okay to tell me.

If you have no answer for it, then it’s okay to tell me.

But if you do have an answer—if you can defend your interpretation from the claim that it is unworkable—then do so. Tell me “No, BryanVA, your argument is wrong. I can explain how this interpretation of the Amendment actually protects the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” from Congress’ ability to deny it to “the people.” And here is how I explain it….”

I submit this would be an excellent way of showing all of us that the time you say you have spent in your research was time well spent.

And now for an apology. TOG 6, I am sorry I have taken up this much space when this argument directly addresses what Golem is claiming rather than directly addressing your OP. I was hoping to quickly settle what the Amendment protects and what it does not protect as the foundation for then discussing what constitutionally permissible limitations we would (or would not) support, and this has not proven to be the case.

 

So looks like this debate is way above your pay-grade.

Understood.

 

It's not my interpretation. It's what it says. It's just a fact from which we can draw interpretations. But the fact reigns supreme.

If you're talking about the fact that the 2nd A literally says that there is a right to bear arms (not a "right to own weapons") youi haven't argued that it's invalid. Just saying something is not the same as "arguing". To argue, you need arguments.

I believe that the 2nd A does protect... something. But I can't even begin to explain to you what that is if you can't even agree what the words written mean.

Did you just misread? That's exactly what I said! The 2nd A doesn't limit any rights.

I'm afraid you're going to need to read again.

You have argued powerfully against what I haven't said. Not a word about what I have said. All the quotes you have provided confirm what I really said. But you haven't noticed it.

However, explaining this to you again at this point is pointless. Because you can't even agree on the meaning of the words written on the 2nd A. And for some reason you refuse to say why.

My interpretation doesn't. The fact that militias are irrelevant to the security of a free state might.... maybe... That, again, is a different topic.

Start by paying attention to what you read. You demanded before that I respond only to what you say, and not to what you don't say. I responded that that was a fair request. But I ask to you the same. Stop responding to things I don't say. Especially (like above) in which responded to exactly the opposite of what I did say.

The rest of your post is an ad-hominem. I'm sure you can do better than that.

 

My main argument is that the 2nd A literally says "bear arms", and not "own weapons". I don't recall you refuting that in the least.

My "main argument" most definitely is not about what the 2nd A grants or reaffirms, or limits, or... any of those things. It would be impossible for me to explain my argument if you fail to either agree or debunk my real main argument. Which is not even an argument, BTW. It's an observation. The observation is that the 2nd A doesn't say "own weapons", it doesn't say "wear masks", it doesn't say "drive cars", it doesn't say "wear bowties" ... it says "bear arms". And it clarifies that this is because a well regulated militia is (or was) necessary to the security of a free state.

You insist on trying to discuss why it says that before even acknowledging what "that" is. That would be like insisting on discussing why the Sun appears to rotate around the Earth before you accept that the Sun does not actually rotate around the Earth.

Answer it here and now. Directly and succinctly. Do you deny that the 2nd A literally says "bear arms" and not "own weapons"? Do you deny that those two things are not the same?

If your answer is that you deny it, then explain why. Is it that you deny that it says "bear arms"?

You keep insisting that I "interpret". I don't. The only one "interpreting" would be somebody who holds that "bear arms" and "own weapons" is the same. I'm discussing what it means literally.

 

Hopefully you realize that you are responding to a post that was not directed at you.

 

How do you figure? You are objectively incorrect. I’ve proven this, citing actual case precedent. Your interpretation has no basis in law or grammar. It’s why you lost.