Are you out of your .... ??? For the last time: That is one of many examples I could use to demonstrate the grammar in my statement. My point is not whether or not the passengers can disembark, or if John can only reach the ceiling if he's standing on a chair... etc. It's to explain what those sentences would mean in the mind of a typical American at the time they were written. THIS is my point (I copy-paste from the OP) In English, when the verb in a prefatory clause 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. Always!!! And the three examples are meant to explain the above. Focus!
I can, I have, and you know it. A statement you know to be false: A statement you know you cannot demonstrate to be true: So, again: As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know are false? As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
You have confirmed you do not understand the argument you are repeating. You are focused on a false premise. The Ninth Amendment is an important piece of the Constitution. The premise you are repeating here ignores that.
He repeatedly makes statements he knows are false, and statements he knows he cannot prove. Can you realistically expect better?
I have shown (on the OP) the reasons why I make that statement. By opening this thread I submit for discussion whether my arguments "demonstrate" my point or not. "Not true" (or similar) is not a rebuttal. It's a confirmation that you have no arguments to refute them. So, either rebut them or be gone. I doubt you can rebut them, given that you have demonstrated you don't even understand them. So stop wasting our time with your "you're lying" excuses.
I am focused on a premise that you haven't... even provided any arguments to demonstrate it false. WTF? I'm not talking about the 9th A. I'm talking about the meaning of the text, as written, in the 2nd A. The 9th A does not dictate anything about grammatical structures in English. If you want to talk about the 9th A, open a thread. And maybe I'll have something to comment about it. Or maybe not. But don't derail this one. And you haven't even been able to refer to my arguments. A couple of posters have, but you're not one of them. So if you have anything to say about my arguments, go for it. If not, do yourself a favor and just don't respond. You are wasting your and my time.
So how would you read these: Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).
No need to ask. You are against gun ownership. You don't need a page of unrelated text for that to be obvious.
The simple truth is that Golem, like many democrats, don't like folks who can protect themselves from crime. Victimhood is the essence of changing voter's minds and goading them into giving up their own rights because of the fear democrats attempt to instill into the public discourse. The right to self defense and to keep and bear arms flies in the face of what democrats want, which is unfettered authority and the ability to ration justice when and where they want. Autocracies like the one democrats and Golem dream of cannot withstand having an armed public that are capable of their own defense as well as the ability to wrest power being abused by the tyrannical governments of democrats. Golem is just the mouthpiece here. The language of the constitution is clear. Congress shall not infringe on the right of the people. The signers of the constitution also concluded that standing armies were dangerous, and like democrats would want today, can be used to suppress and oppress the people. Democrats are just reaching to make sure that their government use of force is the only game out there. This is what tyrants do.
I’ve quoted your arguments word for word with PF’s quote function. I couldn’t care less about your time. My time pointing out the errors of the people you parrot is well spent. I’m happy to “waste” the time of those intent on removing the foundations of government by, for, and of the people. I have shown your entire premise to be baseless by providing evidence of the founder’s intent. I’ve also pointed out other sections of the Bill of Rights that make your (or whoever you are parroting) premise impossible. Now, I have no control over how you spend your time. I don’t want to control others by dictating what they do or what they own. You chose to start a thread attempting to justify violating rights to property, self defense, and self determination/government. I will continue in defense of those rights and let you choose whether it’s worth your time to post in response. If replying to me is a waste of your time there is only one way for you demonstrate that is in fact true.
As you are aware, your arguments have been shown to be incorrect. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment has no basis in law or the rules of grammar. this is evidenced by the fact your argument has lost every single times it's been tried in court.
This does not in any way change the fact you have not demonstrated your claim to be true. So, again: As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know are false? As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
Great response! You believe that the text of the 2nd A is "unrelated text" in respect to gun ownership. My job is done...
And those have been the only parts of your posts that make any sense. But countering them with arguments that are RELEVANT to the point those quotes make would have been more desirable than just quoting them and then wandering off into unrelated musings. But.... if that's the best you can do... What can we do? I say again what I said before: maybe you should START threads instead of trying to derail those started by others. I might have something to say about your unrelated nonsense. But I'm not prepared to help you derail my thread.
That is not what I believe and is nowhere close to what I said. BTW, the library is always open now. 24/7.
I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence of those quoted claims. You have not done so. So I preceded to blow up the rest of your claims. LOL. Providing solid verifiable evidence your thread is a false premise is derailing your thread? Well, I guess that depends on your perspective. I’ve certainly destroyed the premise it’s based on. But I have not derailed it by posting information irrelevant to the OP. Quite the contrary. My content is so relevant you can’t dispute it. Instead you have to resort to this. Now, if my content is truly derailing “your thread” on an open forum I suggest reporting it and the mods will happily delete it. I fully support mods removing content irrelevant to the OP or subsequent posts in the thread by the OP. Of course we know my content is not derailing your thread, but instead debunking it, so all you will do is continue to whine. Perhaps you should publish a blog in a format that allows no comments on your monologue. Then you couldn’t get “derailed” with facts that conflict with that monologue. It seems the claim I’m wasting your time is unfounded. You have failed to produce evidence of that claim as well. You wouldn’t even have to do any research. All you have to do is.....nothing, but still no evidence.
The only claim I have made is that, as shown by basic English grammar, the 2nd A indicates that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary for the defense of a free state. I claim NOTHING more, as far as this thread goes. I have proven this by giving examples in the English language. And you have not countered my claim. The rest is nonsense. But your refusal to open a thread with... whatever else you want to discuss is compelling evidence that you don't have any case to make whatsoever. You shouldn't be fearful of opening a thread. I might agree with you, I might not have interest or anything to comment... or you might turn my position on guns upside down. I doubt it but... we won't know unless you build up some courage and go for it. If not... then thanks for playing. BTW (as a side note), I don't want the mods to remove your posts. They may become useful in the future as examples of the ways some people use to twist and contort a topic when they realize they have nothing to contribute to it. I don't like it when mods delete posts, except content that is either illegal or that could cost lives. Like some of the nonsense you posted about Covid... However, there is no rule against misleading people using pseudoscience so... But that's a different matter. Don't use it to change the topic. I'll just ignore it if you do, so don't waste your time.
Again, here is your claim. You still have not provided any evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, everything else I provided from quotations of crafters of the 2A to references to other Amendments does in fact show your premise to be incorrect. I open threads when I feel like it. I comment on your posts when I feel like it. Sorry that bothers you. Pointing out your silliness is never a waste of time. And you are interjecting Covid into this conversation, not me. Unfortunately for you everything I post on Covid is factual as evidenced by you being incapable of providing ANY evidence to support your parroted claims on those subjects either. Carry on....unless you wish to provide evidence of your quoted claims.
What's interesting is that in the more than two centuries since ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, various state legislatures and courts, supposedly well understanding your view of "militia only" and the Supremacy Clause, managed to include and affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms in the adoption and amendment of their state constitutions and in signature 2A cases in state courts over sixty times over those two centuries. In those 230 years there were only three decades where the individual right to keep and bear arms didn't have a state constitution adopted or amended or a signature court case affirm the right didn't happen. Can you explain how over those two plus centuries, including as soon as the year after the ratification of the Second Amendment and as recently as 2010, that legislatures and courts were so out of line with the collective only viewpoint as to ignore it entirely when adopting and amendment state constitutions? https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
How many times do you need it explained to you that my only claim is about the meaning of the 2nd A as proven by grammar? I do think a militia is irrelevant today, but that's a different topic. If you have arguments to show that it is, open a thread and tell us how it's relevant. But this is just a side note. Not meant for you to have straws to grasp at so you can change the subject. But of course you don't feel like it! Certainly no one expects to "feel like" opening a thread when you have no arguments. So your intention is clear. But to describe it I would have to use a word that, I have been advised, I should not use in this forum.
It's not my understanding. It's what the 2nd A says. So that would support the argument that the individual right to own guns is not in the 2nd A. Otherwise, why would the states feel the need to adopt it if it already was? [NB: "Own guns" is not the same as "bear arms". But that discussion is for English 102... coming soon to a forum near you. Recommended only for those who approve English 101] Whatever the reason (and I could argue -in a different thread- that your premise is not true) I can tell you, as it pertains to this thread, that it was NOT because our forefathers struggled to communicate in English. If you believe that they didn't know how to properly communicate in English, you would need to open a new thread and tell us your arguments. But the 2nd A is clear in what it says.
So, again: As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know are false? As it took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, who do you continue to make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
It's "keep and bear arms". It's a conjunctive phrase. And yes, "keep and bear" means "own". The constitutional individual right predates the 2A. Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15). The 2A does not define the right. It protects it. It cannot protect a collective right. In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." However, the federal government and all of its power exist solely because of the Constitution. No Constitution, no governmental authority, no militia, no military, yet the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes would still exist. As our forefathers did understand English, "lawful" is not a word they would have used in describing the activities of a government body.
I have provided the claim of yours numerous times now. You made the claim more than once in this thread. It is your claim, so it is a topic of this thread. Here it is again. In another thread you made the false claim most early militia took guns owned by the state home to “keep and bear”. When shown this was false, and that militia were required to purchase their own arms, you said it was immaterial to your argument. You are doing the same thing now—making declarations and then when asked to substantiate them you fail to do so and even claim the quoted posts aren’t your argument. If you don’t want to discuss a topic why go to the trouble of writing about it? I have presented two arguments you have failed to refute in this thread. I’m glad you have changed your mind about me wasting your time. You certainly need all the education on this subject you can get. In the spirit of your original post, please provide evidence everyone who does not create enough threads on PF to suit Golem is without an argument. Go....
