You’re saying we need English classes right? that man, a well educated man, that was alive at the time of adoption, was elected to vote on matters such as the adoption of the constitution, meaning he had to know the meaning and English of the constitution in order to support it. He said the right was that of the people and not the state nor federal governments. (How he interpreted it as written in its final form that he voted on) yet that has nothing to do with English? He had no idea how to read English in order to have an understanding on it to vote and write about it in historical papers? Get out of dodge. You’re cherry picking your debates because you know you have no argument about them. You have lost this debate in my eyes and many on here….
Nope. See? I knew you hadn't read the OP! A lot of well educated people at the time didn't agree with the 2nd A as was written and approved. Many wanted to include other things. Even some of the states adopted versions, in their state constitutions, that were more to their liking. But the 2nd A in the Bill of Rights was voted by Congress and approved by the states the way we see it today, and those who disagreed LOST! This is off-topic here, though. See History 101 Which you won't read anyway, so.... why do I even bother?
Fallacy - you presume your interpretation of English language was the same as The Founders, in their time. It was not. If you would like a better understanding of the thinking behind The Second Amendment, at the time, this would be a good start: https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr - The right of The People to keep and bear arms means precisely what is says. The People were/are The Militia - not the National Guard (which did not exist at the time). Furthermore, to argue that the Second Amendment contemplates a collective Right, when the entire basis for The Constitution and Bill of Rights is Individual Rights / Liberty - is a tremendous leap of logic - and is furthermore why SCOTUS ruled in favor of Heller. You are suggesting that The Founders were Marxists, that one time. You are wrong. Nevertheless, you are free to propose repealing The Second Amendment. Go for it!
Ran out of edit time: SCOTUS did NOT create an Individual Right - they affirmed it. EDIT: [strike] You are suggesting that The Founders were Marxists, that one time. You are wrong. [Insert] Also, any suggestion that The Founders were Marxists, that one time, is wishful thinking.
The Second Amendment originally protected a right to participate in government. The people vote in government organized elections. Likewise, the Founders wanted the people to bear arms in a government organized militia. Unfortunately, the amendment has been hijacked by gun activists who have their own agenda.
I presume no such thing. See http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ The vocabulary in the English language might have somewhat changed. But NOT the grammar discussed on this thread. However, let's see if you have an argument to show that it has. If you have a point to make, you make it. You are changing the subject. This thread is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A. If you want to discuss what "a well regulated militia" meant at the time, I discuss that in the following thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ WTF? Not only is that absurd, but what the hell does that have to do with this thread? Are you saying grammar is Marxist? I don't think you are focusing. And that only makes my case stronger.
I did make it - in a single sentence summary of the Valpariso/Vandercoy link. You're afraid to read it. If you have a point to make, you make it. However, I repeat - read the Valpariso/Vandercoy link - don't run away from it with an irrelevant excuse. You ignored my follow-up corrective post to avoid having your dogma challenged. Let me know when you are prepared to debate without the grade-school tactics.
I will make it even simpler for you - for the first 200-years of American Jurisprudence, everyone that mattered understood completely what The Second Amendment meant. Read Vandercoy - don't be frightened of learning something new.
Terrified! Read forum rules. External links should be used to support a point, not to make if for you. This thread is about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A. So if that's what you want to debate, go for it! Links to other threads are below. If not, derailing a thread is considered "trolling" by forum rules, and is very much frowned upon. It has gotten whole threads deleted by mods. I have no interest in getting this one deleted. I'll make it easy for you If you want to debate what the idioms used meant at the time, click here. If you want to debate what was in the minds of the framers when they enacted the 2nd A, click here. If you want to debate who is and is not part of "a well-regulated militia", click here. If you want to debate something else, open your own thread. Can't make it any easier for you. But you WILL have to make your own case. Forum rules don't allow us to just throw in third party links to make them for us. It's not as terrible as it sounds. You'll get the hang of it. I'm sure that won't be a problem for you. Unless you didn't have anything to say in the first place.
I did make the point and used the link as backup. The point is that "The Right of The People to keep and bear arms" means exactly what it says. Furthermore, SCOTUS affirmed its meaning, and did NOT create it, as you inferred. Your statement re: SCOTUS/Heller is absolutely false. When an otherwise learned opponent makes an intentionally false statement, it makes me wonder about his or her actual motives. If I broke a rule I apologize, however, if you need rely on my mistake to avoid learning anything new, or having your own belief challenged, I will accept that.
Yep! And that's exactly what this thread proves! They KNEW that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed BECAUSE a well-regulated militia was necessary. The question today should be then: is a well regulated militia still necessary? Which is the topic of a different thread.
Your example 4 was invalidated by the Supreme Court in Heller v US which totally divorced the "militia" condition from the right to bear arms.
I'm not talking about the Supreme Court. I'm talking about the 2nd A. I am absolutely aware that the Supreme Court invalidated English Grammar. But that's not what this thread is about. If you have anything to say that would rebut the OP, say it. If not, then... the more people come here and try to change the subject instead of addressing my point, the stronger my point becomes. So I thank you for your help.
Your point is invalid because your premise is irrelevant. Your premise is irrelevant because the arguments for The Second Amendment, and linguistic revisions thereof, by The Founders, prior to its inclusion in The Bill of Rights, undermines your claim completely - https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr. Also, you brought SCOTUS into the equation, and undermine the premise of your arguments by lying about the SCOTUS creating a right rather than the truth that is SCOTUS affirmed a previously existing Right, in Heller. Therefore, your militia argument, based on obscure grammatical rules, that SCOTUS deemed irrelevant by the Heller ruling, is invalid.
Obscure grammatical rules???? It's ENGLISH! There are no grammatical rules that are obscure to any native English speaker. Grammar is 100% intuitive to any native speaker. If you were a native English speaker, the examples I gave would sound natural to you. And, if you could rebut the argument, you would be able to come up with an example that contradicts the rule and that also sounds natural to any other native English speaker. English grammar is not about inventing rules. It's about describing English as it is. As any native born English speaker (or anybody who is 100% fluent in English) with an average education uses and understands the language. However, if you are not a native English speaker (I assume you're not), I understand you would not understand the argument. Again: SCOTUS has nothing to do with this thread. And you continuing to change the topic only makes my point stronger. So thanks for playing....
You need to get out of the library a bit and get some real world experience. Come to the range and shoot with us. Gun Control- A theory that assumes a woman lying dead in an alleyway, strangled with her own underwear, is somehow morally superior to another woman in the same back alley explaining to police how her attacker got that bullet hole in him.
If your red-herring argument had any merit, in the least, any of the progressive-liberal-activists on the SCOTUS would have dreamed it up a long time ago.
Somehow methinks you'd be administering an English test as the schoolhouse burned and threatened you and your students with death.
This thread has NOTHING to do with Gun Control. One of the mods moved it to this forum despite my protests. This is about the 2nd Amendment! I have started other threads discussing gun control. This one is not one of them.
That is incorrect. The right existed long before the Heller ruling. That is incorrect. The text of the Second Amendment expressly protects the right to keep and bear arms. Upholding the Constitution does not make a judge activist. Further, court rulings are not legislation. Your point is wrong. The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to keep and bear arms. Hardly irrelevant. Let's bring back the militia. Militiamen have the right to have machine guns and hand grenades. And the right to keep them at home. But do note that bringing back the militia will not change the reality that non-militiamen have the right to have guns for private self defense. Wrong. The Second Amendment addresses the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment states that the militia is necessary. Until such time as the Second Amendment is repealed, the militia remains necessary. Since this is a legal issue and not a linguistic issue, the legal experts are the ones who are correct. Wrong. The Second Amendment does say that. Wrong. The Second Amendment does not say "because". The Second Amendment requires a militia. So long as the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, a militia is required. Wrong. The Second Amendment remains in force as part of our Constitution. The Second Amendment does quite a bit. For example, it prohibits many gun control laws. So do not violate the Third Amendment. The reason has not become irrelevant. The Second Amendment still requires the government to have a militia. Additionally, people also have the right to keep and bear arms for reasons other than the militia. Private self defense for example. Not irrelevant. The Second Amendment requires the militia's existence. The government's violation of the Second Amendment doesn't make the Second Amendment irrelevant. Upholding the Constitution is neither activist nor arbitrary. It may well be incompatible with the science of linguistics, but the science of linguistics is of no relevance in interpreting the law. You are wrong. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms. Your explanation is wrong. What it meant to people at the time it was written was: a) a requirement that the government always have a highly effective militia, and b) a requirement that the government never infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Weapons are arms. He was right to ignore them. Their amicus had nothing to do with the law. That is incorrect. Upholding the Constitution is neither activist nor legislation. You are making things up here. The word "because" is not anywhere in the Second Amendment. So long as the Second Amendment exists, a well regulated militia is always necessary, because the Second Amendment makes it a requirement that the government have a well-regulated militia. However, even if it were somehow possible for the militia to be unnecessary, the Second Amendment would still protect the right of people to keep and bear arms for their private self defense. That is not even remotely what it says. There is no such dependence in the Second Amendment.
That is incorrect. I agree that he did not quote the entire sentence, but it does say the part that he quoted. Well, we wouldn't expect militiamen to have nuclear missiles. But machineguns and hand grenades are appropriate for militiamen to have.
Actually the term "well regulated militia" meant that the militia in question had trained sufficiently that they could fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals. It had nothing to do with subservience or with obeying regulations. That's not to say they didn't expect militias to follow regulations and obey orders, but it's not what they were thinking about when they said the words "well regulated". It's sort of like a "well regulated" watch is one where all the gears and springs function together smoothly.
This thread is not about the Heller ruling. It's about the 2nd A. My comments about Scalia's legislation are a passing comment and I discuss Heller elsewhere. Of course. What it protects is describe on the OP. The rest of your post is just you repeating "you're wrong... you're wrong" with no real substance. But none of it addresses the OP. If you have anything to say about this topic, go for it. If you want to discuss other topics, You can find a list of topics here, with a link to the corresponding thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-gun-advocates.585785/page-17#post-1072843777
