Yes Golem they do. The links in your post to the Corpus of Early Modern English were used by me. In the Corpus you WILL find those quotes. If you actually do research which neither your blogger or you did. That or your blogger is lying and you fell for the lie. I’ll reiterate. The pull quotes I’ve provided are from the Corpus of Early Modern English which is linked to in YOUR SOURCE links. The Corpus of Early Modern English is THE Source for the whole premise of your thread. The premise is false. Period.
Do you know what "Corpus" means? It means all the writings, books, articles, letters, ... everything anybody wrote. Your statement is like saying "look it up in Google". But don't bother, I get it. You are afraid to show the context. It doesn't matter, actually. Since you claim absurd things like that the Quakers "bearing arms" against the French does not refer to a military type scenario. So actually your attempt to hide the context didn't help you anyway. Don't let that discourage you from actually doing research in the future, though.
The pull quotes are from the source material cited BY YOUR SOURCE. The pull quotes are FROM YOUR LINKS. Here is the link to the Corpus that is contained IN YOUR LINKS that your entire thread is based on. Of course you didn’t read any of the source material. I had to do that for you. You just made a thread based on the disinformation provided to you. You never did any research because you don’t have any knowledge of the source material. You didn’t even know where to find it. https://lawcorpus.byu.edu/ You did not research the validity of your source or your claims. If you had you would know my pull quotes were in the links you provided. You referenced the Corpus and you NEVER READ ANY OF IT. I have done your research for you. Again. That thread is now completely illegitimate and irrelevant. I pointed this out in that thread months ago yet you continue linking to it and discussing it like it’s based on factual information. It is not. It’s a total fraud. And you NEVER do any research. Oh, and you don’t have to read the whole thing Mr. Research. Just use the search function. Jeez.
I said don't bother. I understand why you won't show the link. It allows you to leave a "backdoor" open to try to change the subject when your claim proves to be nonsense... I mean, Quakers bearing arms against the French is not a military-type scenario? The context was actually in your quote. I just wanted to see how it was you would try to change the subject. And to what you would change it to. And it looks like what you want to change it to is to a discussion about where the links are. So yet another attempt to rebut the OP that fails. You do know that every time you fail to make a rebuttal and, instead, you try to change the subject (like you're doing here), the OP gains credibility, right?
I just supplied you the link. LOL Self defense by private, non military, pacifist citizens is not a military type scenario. Period. I’m not changing the subject. I’m pointing out your OP in that thread is based on false information. That means the thread has NO credibility. Thanks for the humor though. LOL
Why not? I owned a rifle at that age. In fact, I have owned firearms for over 40 years. And in all that time, I have never shot anybody with one.
You are free to require reasonable safety training, but free people do indeed have the right to have guns. No. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Incorrect. All free people have the right to keep and bear arms. Membership in a militia is not required. Limitations on our fundamental rights are allowed only if the limitations pass muster with strict scrutiny. No. It requires due process to remove someone's rights. Actually what "well regulated" absolutely means is that the militia in question has trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Your mistake is in assuming that "military" means "not individual". The right is very much an individual right. The military character of the right only means that individuals have the right to own and possess military weapons. Further, people have the right to use their weapons for their private self defense even though the main focus is on using the weapons militarily. It is true that the main focus is for people to use their guns in a military context, but people also have the right to use their guns for private self defense. Well regulated means that the militia in question has trained to a sufficient degree that they fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals. Only if most Americans count as gun advocates. Most Americans do not think that freedom and civil liberties are archaic concepts. Linguistics are irrelevant. What matters is what the law means. That is incorrect. The Second Amendment covers the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to keep and bear arms includes private self defense. The definitions are close enough though that they can be used interchangeably in informal conversation. OK, but notice that it is individuals who have the right to keep military armament for the purpose of serving in a well regulated militia. And individuals also have the right to use their arms for private self defense.
Please provide an example quote in which "military" is used to refer to an individual who is not part of a military group. And I don't mean metaphorically. There is not A SINGLE instance in corpus linguistics (literature, articles, letters... any type of writing), in which "bear arms" without a qualifier (as it appears on the 2nd A) is used to refer to an individual owning any type of weapons. I think you are a bit confused about how to engage in a debate. You see... in a serious debate, just... saying things... is not considered an argument. You need to provide quotes, examples, references, arguments ... some sort of support for what you say. I have said nothing to rebut or support that. I am only stating that, if such right exists, it is not referenced on the 2nd A Oh God!!!! Linguistics is the ONLY way human beings can communicate. Linguistics is THE ONLY relevant thing. The rest simply exists to reaffirm the meaning. Linguistics was certainly relevant to Scalia, since he spent many many pages trying (and failing) to justify the language used on the Amendment. It's difficult for me to take you seriously after a statement like that. Your attempt to participate in a thread about linguistics without understanding what "linguistics" means is not a good idea.... And you don't appear to be providing any arguments anyway. Just... saying things... With no support, references, arguments... nothing. So... thanks for trying anyway...
But your attempt at communication is nothing more than propagandizing. Tell you what, bring your argument to the Supreme Court. They have weighed in on this very topic over and over again over the decades. And almost every single time they have sided against your silly claims. It and almost everybody else with half a brain accepts that the government has a right to regulate what kinds of weapons can be owned and who can own them (for example not felons or the mentally ill), but has also stated that it is an individual right, and that it will not be unduly infringed upon. So for all that you keep going around and around in circles, even the decisions of the Supreme Court (and there are hundreds) say your interpretation is wrong. In short, all you are doing is nothing but mental masturbation in your own private echo chamber.
Exactly! You concede (and most likely you don't even realize that you did) my overall point: Which is that the only reason there is a "right to own weapons" today is that an activist and very partisan Supreme Court decided to take it upon itself to pass legislation. Not because it's addressed by the 2nd A. Thanks for playing....
No, that is your stupid claim, that has no basis in reality. Heck, even the "Earl Warren Court", considered one of the most liberal Supreme Courts ever affirmed many times the right to keep and bear arms, but did agree with some levels of regulation. No, you really are an echo chamber of just yourself. YOu make those stupid leaps that you think confirm your own beliefs, but in fact do nothing of the sort.
How does that law not violate the second amendment as it clearly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms every bit as much as a ban on Ar-15s would.
It isn't clear to me. If we go with the Heller ruling, then under Strict Scrutiny it is pretty easy to see a compelling government interest in restricting access to nuclear weapons. If we expand enforcement of the Second Amendment to cover militia arms, it is hard to see how nuclear weapons could be something that militiamen would purchase and bring with them when they are called to repel a foreign invader.
Well, we can start at simply the cost. You are aware that not only is Plutonium highly regulated internationally, it is also very expensive? That just the cost for plutonium alone for a single small bomb would run in the neighborhood of $16 million. And what would somebody do with it if they had one?
SCOTUS has repeatedly stated that the Bill of Rights and Constitution as a whole is not absolute, and that putting restrictions upon individuals is allowed, so long as they are not undo. Case in point, Freedom of Speech is a clear right, but does not protect an individual from charges if they cause a riot, are construed as sedition, or slanderous against others. We do indeed have the Right to Bear Arms. But removing such rights from felons, the mentally ill, and restricting what arms are allowed has been in place for over a century. Or are you one of those that thinks that every one of the Amendments is absolute, and should have no restrictions at all? That even felons have a right to own RPG missiles and launchers?
Im sure Elon Musk could afford a nuke. with the literal reading of the Second Amendment that many pro gun people love to hide behind, I don’t see how the US government would be able to stop it.
You are, of course, wrong, as the Supreme Court has ruled over and over again (and just wait until the ruling on the NY case comes down and requires all 50 States to be "shall issue"), but let's play a game and pretend you're right. As you no doubt know, existing Federal Law defines the United States Militia as including every able bodied male between 18-49, and the equal protection clause would almost certainly mean that applies to able-bodied women, too. So there's a big chunk of the adult population that by YOUR terms have a right, in fact one might argue an obligation, to own a firearm of some kind, in case they are called into actual service. Whether or not equal protection would also force the law to be modified to cover those over 49 I don't know (though it seems reasonable), but I just can't see the Feds saying, "Well, you're 50 now, so no more guns for you...", especially considering just how violent us old folk are. I'd also argue (and have on many occasions) that even if the 2A never existed that .gov doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate and ban private ownership of firearms because nothing in the Constitution itself grants them that authority.
Is more than that, as North Korea has learned you also have to have a way to get it to where your target is. And even getting the plutonium. Not like you can order it on E-bay. Which is why those nations that have it spend so much money in making it in the first place. And of course there is finding the specialists able to actually make a a bomb. Once again, not exactly something somebody is going to be doing in their basement.
That’s not the point. If we accept the literal view of the second amendment that many people profess, there isn’t anything the US government could do legally to stop someone with the means from creating and owning one.
I don't know what Trump's reasons were for banning transgender folk from the military, in fact, I suspect I must have been in the hospital in a semi-catatonic state when those discussions were happening (as I was for pert near half of his term), because I don't remember the first thing about any debates or discussions about the topic. However, and despite the fact that I don't care if non-heterosexual folks want to serve, there is a good reason to ban trans people, and it's the same reason you can't serve if you're diabetic. The constant need for medication. If you are deployed in a real world war, far ahead of supply lines and anything even closely resembling creature comforts, there is no way to guarantee that you will be able to get your meds. And for that reason, it's a bad idea. Nothing to do with hatred or discrimination, it's just the same standard that's been applied to pretty much all medication dependent person since the beginning of time. Now, back to the actual topic. I have a question for you. You are obviously very anti-gun, and you do not like the idea that the "rabble" can even own a firearm at home, much less, heaven forbid, be able to carry one on their person out in public legally. So for a moment, let's put aside the Constitution, and all the trial balloon threads you've started attempting to come up with clever ways out of recognizing that the 2A says what the 2A says. So here's the question... What is it that you are so desperately afraid of? Does the idea of standing in line at Home Depot next to a "gun nut" with a sidearm legally tucked up under his shirt make your knees shiver? You spoke of being lured to someone's home and gunned down, is that what truly frightens you? Do you really think your neighbors, your co-workers, or that guy carrying (legally) at Home Depot are one day just going to look at you, lose their minds, and decide that the world would be so much better off without you that they're just going to shoot and kill you right then and there? How do you ever leave your house with that much fear flowing through your veins?
Well, maybe. But historically the right to keep and bear arms has been about weapons that ordinary people can afford to own and maintain. While there have been cases of the ultra rich bringing expensive weapons to battle that are normally only supplied by the government, I don’t know that this was ever made the subject of a right. Asserting one’s civil liberties isn’t hiding behind anything. Anyway, currently the courts are not even enforcing the militia aspect of the Second Amendment. Under Heller and Strict Scrutiny all they need to do is find that the government has a compelling interest in restricting access to nuclear weapons. If the courts start enforcing the militia aspect of the Second Amendment in the future they could choose to constrain it to weapons that ordinary people can afford.
This thread is not about the Supreme Court. It's about the 2nd A as written, discussed, modified, approved, discussed, re-written, debated, modified again and finally passed by Congress and the States. Then you agree with my overall point, which is that... wherever this "right to own guns" (whatever it is would be a topic for a different thread) came from, it's not from the 2nd A. And, since I see no rebuttal of the point I made in the OP, looks like we are in agreement in what pertains to this thread.
