English 102: "...to keep and bear arms"

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Golem, Mar 17, 2021.

  1. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is a good point. an article that starts with a lie should be disregarded. and that clown who wrote it is a non-entity in this area of scholarship
     
    Reality likes this.
  2. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dude, the first Senate had definite meanings for each amendment at that time and the meanings shouldn't change but have changed due to bastardizations of meanings of 2A from incorrect SCOTUS opinions out of a necessity to broaden the original meaning of 2A.
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah.
    There's really no sense in wasting time on people who know their posts are false - other than to give them the opportunity to prove it to the casual reader.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  4. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That clown is a non-entity especially if they disagree with you?:roll:
     
  5. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which makes you an ideologue.
     
  6. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    they are a non-entity when they post crap that runs counter to known reality
     
    Reality likes this.
  7. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not lies if you read the motivations and arguments behind the debate and eventual passage of 2A in 1791. Why don't you read about the motivations and arguments which entailed the passage of 2A by the first Senate in 1791? Hum?
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You base your nonsensical, unsupportable, position on lies.
     
    Reality and Turtledude like this.
  9. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wha? What weapons did the Jan.6 insurrectionists possess?
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,521
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So now you admit you made the claim? I just want to be clear what your position is. It changes so often, it can be hard to tell.

    See Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234, 247 (1960) (The [Necessary and Proper Clause] is not itself a grant of power, but a caveat that the Congress possesses all the means necessary to carry out the specifically granted ‘foregoing’ powers of [Article I, Section 8] ‘and all other Powers vested by this Constitution.’).
    Find a case that overrules Kinsella v US, or at the very bare minimum make a reasoned argument as to how the power to carry out your existing powers already granted is in fact a power.
    You might want to review Kinsella for the arguments made there and discarded by the Court. Just a helpful tip.

    Dude the memes are a JOKE. FFS 40k.theyspeakhighgothicontau.jpg
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  12. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Turtledude likes this.
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Turtledude likes this.
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,521
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You respond to an argument by linguists who PROVE that the linguistic arguments used to decide Heller v DC were wrong by referring the poster to Heller v DC?

    Hilarious!
     
  15. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm citing Heller which is citing sources contemporaneous with the founding on the subject.
    I don't give a **** what Jeff Bezos paid someone to say. Additionally: PAY WALL
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,521
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The post and the article they referenced refers to LINGUISTIC arguments that Scalia got wrong. Demonstrably wrong! By using the same tools mentioned in the OP: two databases that contain ALL the documents written at the time the 2nd A was enacted (books, articles, letters, sings, ... everything). And they prove that Scalia's linguistic arguments, which he included in the Heller decision, were dead WRONG!

    Let me state that again: they PROVE that Scalia was wrong. They prove it scientifically. Since this evidence was published, I have not seen a single expert in linguistics or philology who agrees with Scalia's linguistic arguments. So I guess it's pretty definitive. Unless you can show something different.

    Now... despite all that Heller is, of course, the law of the land. But it's standing on very shaky ground. Especially after the country's most prominent historians have ALSO demonstrated that Scalia's arguments dealing with the historic facts surrounding the 2nd A were also wrong.

    I don't know about his legal arguments, but I've heard they don't hold much water either. However, Scalia is a legal scholar, so I wouldn't take him on on that. But his arguments that deal with Linguistics and History have been solidly debunked by ALL experts on the topic.

    BTW, if you are interested in learning about the failure of his arguments based on History, there are two different threads that deal with those.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As if we needed any additional evidence of your unwillingness to engage in an honest conversation.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  18. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again: See Heller which quotes sources from the time period that agreed with the holding.
    A paywalled opinion piece written by Jeff Bezos' paper is not a source contemporaneous with the founding.

    Nor can you back up any claim so broad as "all experts on the topic". In fact, your hyperbole indicates puffery to me.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,521
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seeing Heller was exactly what the linguists did. And, guess what... You can see the results in the article the poster you responded to cited, or you can find a summary in the OP.

    The OP provides the non-paywalled sources for exactly THE SAME arguments. Here it is again, in case you missed it: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=42613

    Spoiler alert: Scalia's linguistic analysis was WRONG!

    The scientific analysis is explained there PLUS a link to the tools the scientists used and the databases, in case you want to perform the experiment they carried out yourself

    Bottom line: there is NO way around the fact they conclude: the 2nd A refers to a military scenario ONLY. It does not reference in any way some individual "right" to own weapons. The 2nd A doesn't grant it, it doesn't restrict it, it doesn't affirm it, it doesn't deny it... It just doesn't address it in ANY way.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
  20. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The article has a paywall. I can't see ****.

    Spoiler alert: Scalia cited linguistic sources contemporaneous with the founding. Argue with those sources.

    Its not science dude.

    The 2a refers to the individual right of the citizenry to possess and or carry arms ready for use for lawful purposes. Period. End of story.

    As to the link in your latest post, he says the following " In the court’s view, if the operative clause was unambiguous, the prefatory clause “does not limit or expand [its] scope.” So if court was wrong in thinking that the operative clause was unambiguous, it was wrong in refusing to consider whether the prefatory clause affected its meaning. And if the prefatory clause plays a role in interpreting the operative clause, the argument against the court’s interpretation is strengthened.".

    This is plainly, explicitly, incorrect.
    Prefatory clauses never function to change, alter, add to, takeaway from, etc., an operative clause. Ever. You can literally put your hand over the prefatory clause and read the operative only.
    The fact he either cannot understand this, or intentionally misattributes the position of the Court, makes his entire following argument complete and total bullshit.

    Moreover: To bear still meant to carry in 1791. When used with arms it means to carry said arms ready to be used. Various linguistic sources from the day agree with that, those citations are relied upon.
    As to your sources koalafications: I don't give a **** what Mr. Goldfarb says, he freely admits he's just a lawyer quoting linguists so he's in a lesser position than Scalia and the same position as myself but for the fact that I'm quoting established precedents and sources of the time period. FFS.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,521
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Language Log doesn't have a paywall. That's an excuse.

    And that was his mistake. Not being a linguist, Scalia didn't understand that "keep and bear arms" is an idiom. A full expression that cannot be interpreted by dividing it into the individual words. The would be like explaining when somebody says that something is "a piece of cake" by looking up the definitions of "piece" and "cake". The way it's interpreted is by understanding how it's used in OTHER documents of the era. And in ALL cases (with one comedic exception that is explained on the OP), in order for the idiom to mean anything OTHER than a military scenario, was to add qualifiers. Adding these qualifiers, BTW, was PROPOSED by the anti-federalists. And they were, in fact, approved by the House. If they had passed the Senate, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and your interpretation would have been accurate. However, they were removed by the Senate despite protests by the anti-federalists. Which indicates that the purpose of the Amendment, as approved, was clear and unequivocal.

    BTW, did you know that Linguistics is considered one of the youngest sciences? It wasn't recognized as a science until (I believe) the 1960s, You know who the father of Linguistics as a Science is? Noam Chomsky! The guy is still alive! So there is no such thing as "linguistic sources contemporaneous with the founding". Just so you know....

    Not only is it science. YOU (or anybody) can repeat the same experiment that the scientists used and see if you get a different result. Making it one of the most exact sciences that human beings are capable of.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2022
    Galileo likes this.
  22. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    6,491
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its fun to watch all this blue state falderall. Here we just walk into a gun store, buy the gun of our choice, the dealer makes a phone call to do the background check, we pay for it, take it and go home. TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  23. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As stated: THATS THE WASHINGTON POST LINK I"M REFERRING TO I ADDRESS MR GOLDFARB BELOW. READ.

    Keep and bear arms is not an idiom ffs. Keep means to possess ready for use and bear means to carry ready for use, when referring to "arms". Period.
    It is not a euphemism.

    It is clear and unequivocal, the sentence unambiguously recognizes the preexisting right of the individual citizens to possess and carry arms ready for use.

    Its not a science any more than ****ing gender studies is a science. I don't give a **** about Noam Chomsky.
    Are you claiming that rules of grammar, the study and teaching of same did not occur until the 1960s?
    What time is it over there? Past 5? Maybe switch to water for a bit?


    Further: I note you did not address Goldfarbs issues and pretend they don't in fact exist. Strange, no?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2022
    Turtledude likes this.
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because he does not intend to, in any way, carry on an honest discussion with you - or anyone else.
     
    Reality and Turtledude like this.
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,521
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When referring to "bear arms" it means "maintain in good working condition". The reason we know this is an idiom is by looking at every single piece of writing of the period. Linguists did this. And the results are on the OP.

    In fact, it's an idiom even today. This is the reason why Garry Wills phrase "you don't bear arms against a rabbit" sounds odd to any native English speaker.

    What???? What do "euphemisms" have to do with... Dear God! Looks like this is a waste of time.

    Scientists in linguistics made their analysis. They showed how they did it, showed the results, and even provide the tools so you can do your own analysis. If you arrive at a different conclusion by actually PERFORMING a scientific analysis, show it! Just saying it... and, even worse, making up some argument about "euphemisms" is not going to help you rebut science.

    And now, in your desperation, you attack science. ANYTHING that is methodological, clear and repeatable, uses deductive reasoning and leads to the same conclusion every time experimentation is used, is science. So if Noam Chomsky didn't create the science of linguistics, these researchers did.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022

Share This Page