That is a meaningless, purposefully vague and irrelevant statement. Fact is that "to keep and bear arms" does not imply that owning them is necessary. And the fact that you so carefully worded it indicates that you now know that you can't defend a statement made in precise terms that would justify equating the two idioms.
Some people feared that, others didn't. Point being that, for whatever reason, they didn't believe that a standing army was the best alternative "to the security of a free state" You keep making observations that are IRRELEVANT to any of my points. You appear convinced that repeating "that is incorrect" again and again can substitute for responding to my arguments. It doesn't! If you have something substantive to say about my arguments, I will take a look and address them appropriately. But I'm not going to bother with any future posts like this one, with no substance... You are on your own.
Prior to 1789 it was not used. But the idioms "keep arms" and "bear arms", and phrases with "keep" and "bear" close to arms were used. And they predominantly REFERRED to military scenarios. This is reinforced by the fact that discussions leading to the 2nd A were EXCLUSIVELY about military scenarios. So the alternative explanation would be that the framers would want to "fool" people into believing they were talking about the military when, in reality, they were talking about something they never even discussed: owning guns. Which is ridiculous. If you have anything to demonstrate that it was used in any other sense, SHOW it. Less verbiage would be more effective.
it's pretty clear to most of us that you want to pretend that keeping and bearing does not prevent banning ownership, banning possession etc, but you cannot find any support for that
and you have been edified that of course it mainly referred to military applications because we had just fought a revolution in order to create a new nation. what good do you think your extremely narrow and incredibly dishonest interpretation of keeping and bearing gets you? how can a government be allowed to ban the possession or ownership of firearms while being prevented from infringing on keeping and bearing? that is a ridiculous argument to make. The obvious interpretation is ownership and possession is under the umbrella of keeping and bearing
That does not change anything. Some were in existence continually and some were not. They provided their own arms. The militias provided almost nothing. If you look at the 2nd amendment in that context, it makes perfect sense. There is no ambiguity. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
gun banners understand that if the second amendment was properly interpreted, there would be no 1934 NFA, not GCA of 68 and with incorporation, none of the crap like magazine limits, semi auto bans etc. so avid victim disarmament operatives concoct all sorts of sophistry to try to convince the ignorant that the founders really didn't think ownership of firearms should be protected
Great! So you now acknowledge that's what it referred to. Of course, the databases compile documents from way before we fought a revolution. But it doesn't matter WHY that's what people were thinking when they heard the expression. All that matters is that this WAS what the phrase would evoke in their mind. So... to summarize. We had already established that WHO belonged to a militia is irrelevant as it pertains to the interpretation of the 2nd A. We also established that there was NO discussion of owning weapons in the discussions in Congress that resulted in the draft of the 2nd A as we know it today. And now we agree that military scenario (not who owns the guns) was what was evoked in people's minds when they heard an expression like "to keep and bear arms". We disagree on WHY that was in people's mind, but that's irrelevant. The important thing is that it WAS. Is there anything relevant to these threads we disagree on?
Your confusing me. The 2nd A s;peaks of a well regulated [state] militia, but there few, if any, existed at the time the Constitution was written The militia called by congress in the constitutional times was not a well regulated simply they didn't exist other than maybe one outlier. The well regulated militia in the Constitution was an hoped for expectation, not a real one. Congress expected the states to regulate their militia -- insure they knew how to take care of their weapons, knew how to shoot well, could march, could take and follow orders, etc. -- which consisted of the weapon owning general population of able bodied men. The part saying "composed of the body of the people" was probably removed because it added nothing. The Constitution does not specify that the sun shall rise in the east either, for example.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean but... I'm talking about the Bill of Rights. States certainly had militias when the 2nd A was enacted. I really don't know what you're talking about. Of course they existed. However, it's not relevant. The 2nd A simply says they are necessary. That doesn't affect any of my points anyway. That is not accurate, but it doesn't matter. It makes no difference to any of my points. States already had their constitutions when the 2nd A was enacted. Even before the Constitution. I remember at least Virginia (probably others) having a Constitution predating even the Declaration of Independence. And the structure and the power of the governor over the militias is established in those constitutions. In fact, that was the purpose of the 2nd A. To ensure that the states did not neglect their militias. No need to speculate. It was eliminated because very influential figures, most notably Hamilton and Washington were opposed to the well-regulated militia being composed of EVERY able-bodied man. The anti-federalists argued FOR the "every abled body" clause, and they lost. Hamilton insisted that it should be a "select corps". I sent the link to the article in the Federalist (29, if I remember correctly) where he made the case. The link in the OP also explains the deliberations in more detail.
But, governments don't necessarily let a citizen keep arms even when gun ownership, per se, is allowed. There are several countries right now in 'the West' where you can own a weapon -- but -- you cannot have it in your possession unless you check it out from government-supervised facilities where that same weapon must (MUST) be stored. Thus, it's easy to see why our 2nd Amendment was worded so that a citizen would be able to both 'possess' and 'bear' his weapon without having to be subjected to control over it by a 'nannie-state' bureaucracy.
when one examines things like the second amendment, one has to examine the context in which it was created. And that context is that the founders clearly intended the new federal government to have no power to deny CITIZENS the ability to keep and possess firearms. The pathetic attempts to evade that obvious intent are silly machinations designed to somehow justify the government being able to disarm citizens while not technically infringing on "keeping and bearing" (yeah it's ridiculous to pretend that can be done)
It's easy to see why our 2nd A was worded the way it was because we have historical records in which this was discussed in Congress. And they had NOTHING to do with owning guns. There is no need to speculate because historical records TELL US, explicitly and in detail, why there is a 2nd A and why it was worded the way it was. UNLESS you (or anybody) can provide a reference to ANY part of the debate in Congress in which owning guns was referenced. If you want to try... good luck. You should know, however, that this thread is almost 2 years old, many have tried to find that reference and, to this date, nobody has been able to.
that is beyond silly. the founders were not engaged in such sophistry. what do you think they intended? a 5 year rental period for guns. You are trying to pretend that the government can ban ownership of guns because that is the goal you seek/ It's all bullshit. No one said OWNERSHIP because that was both assumed and covered by KEEPING AND BEARING
I have explained what they intended about twenty times. Not what I think, but what historians have demonstrated. What they intended was to ensure that the states did not neglect the militias. Because if the people have a right to be part of the militia, the states have no choice but to keep them functioning and organized so they could be called at a moment's notice by Congress. This is CLEAR by the discussions in Congress leading to the approval of the 2nd A. And it had nothing whatsoever to do with who owns the guns.
I was remiss in my post if I gave the impression that I was in pursuit of anything but what's actually written in the Second Amendment, and, buttressing it at the state-level, the Tenth Amendment. As well noted throughout our history, Congressional debates are often little more than interesting and sometimes useful exchanges of ideas... but where and when ideas have taken form in the Constitution and its Amendments, it is our undiluted, undistracted duty to observe them as being vital components in our nation's life-blood.
I find your explanations to be erroneous and disingenuous. And I am certain my education and experience in this area is many measures superior. So I am confident in rejecting your opinions on anything to do with the constitution in general and the second amendment specifically.
You have demonstrated ZERO preparation in History and Linguistics. Which is what we are discussing here.
They most certainly did. But few, if any, were what could be called well regulated as described in the 2nd A.
All of the states had militia at the writing of the Constitution, the writing of the Bill of Rights, and for many years/decades earlier. The 2nd amendment was not concerned in the least with states having a militia or states neglecting their militia. It was concerned that few, if any, state militias were well regulated. The militias, well regulated or not, consisted only of the general populace who owned, kept, and bore their own guns.
you have demonstrated ZERO preparation in constitutional scholarship which is what actually matters here.
It was the point most addressed during the deliberations in Congress. Point being that it would be AMAZING that, if they wanted to address some "right" to own guns, the topic never came up. While the dangers of states not taking care of their militias WAS. So whatever the purpose of the 2nd A was, it was most definitely NOT address who owned guns.
Here we are, SIXTY-THREE pages deep in this thread! To all who want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, the solution is crystal clear -- amend the Constitution to sabotage, cripple, or just remove the 2nd Amendment altogether! The Constitution has already been amended twenty-seven times, so, go for it! You want to get rid of an American citizen's right to be able to defend himself with deadly force? Then wake up tomorrow morning, get together with your little friends, sing a few verses of "Kumbaya" together, and DO IT!
