how is it irrelevant to note that the second covers those not in the militia and those who have no chance of being in the militia?
yeah, the MILITIA has no relevance to either the scope nor the coverage of the RIGHT the "collective rights" bullshit has always been bullshit and we all know it
It doesn't. It's only relevant to the INTENTION of the amendment. Which is a pretty easy call because it literally SAYS so. I don't think it was intended either as collective nor a personal right. It's a CIVIC right. But that's a different topic. Irrelevant to this discussion.
and yet you and all the others who try to pretend there is no individual right intended, cannot cite a SINGLE comment from any founder that supports the claim. Yes, having well armed men who could answer the call up was a main reason for the second amendment and preventing the federal government from those men being armed was the negative restriction on the government. But you want to pretend that other reasons for owning guns (CLUE=in 1790 people didn't have a) target weapons b) hunting weapons c) military or defensive weapons. the musket or long rifle you shot deer with you also deployed against British regulars or marauding "indians" or wolves attacking the flock": other than perhaps a bayonet, militia weapons were used for all three)
that the second amendment was not intended to protect ownership of arms that people normally would keep and bear
Amazing! So, instead of YOU providing a quote from the debates in Congress leading to the approval of the 2nd A in which gun ownership is even... mentioned, you want ME to show you a quote of somebody saying that the 2nd A was not intended to protect gun ownership... This is what the desperation of somebody who has NO arguments looks like. YOU have proven my point: it is NOT possible to even imagine that the Congress of the United States would assemble to pass a Constitutional Amendment intended (according to Scalia and gun advocates) to "protect" the "right" to own guns... in which nobody ever even MENTIONS owning guns. Any moderately rational (even lower than moderately rational) human being, or above would understand that this fact PROVES that was never the purpose of the 2nd A, and that the though of protecting (or not protecting) gun ownership didn't ever even cross their minds.
until you can establish that the founders wanted to EXCLUDE from the UMBRELLA OF KEEPING AND BEARING , OWNERSHIP, then I will continue to reject what is a specious and contrived argument that is nothing more than a sophistic attempt to avoid the plain intent of the second amendment
I have told you no less than a dozen times that they don't want to EXCLUDE anything. But you'll keep repeating that because all you have left is this strawman. Sad!
you want to pretend that the government can ban ownership of common firearms that citizens keep and bear but the government cannot ban "keeping and bearing" this is a twisted disingenuous mess of an argument. Keep and bear includes owning
I don't know if the government can ban that or not. All I know is that, if anything prevents it, it's not the 2nd A. And the fact that the ONLY thing YOU have to counter this is a lame strawman proves my point.
it is one of several reasons. do you HONESTLY believe the founders wanted to exclude "own" from KEEP AND BEAR?
pathetic is watching the attempts to pretend that Keep and bear doesn't include OWNING. and you never have told us how such a stilted interpretation helps your victim disarmament movement.
