They were voted down because of the view that individual right was not considered necessary since the fundamental structure and responsibility to be able to respond to the call to formation of militias was already accomplished. Find anywhere in federalists that disabused the notion that folks would NOT be afforded gun ownership. This delusion of your is uncomfortable. So, your case isn't made, in fact the discussion proves the point that your position doesn't have merit. at all...
Again, you fail. The obligation of the citizen is to defend as a part of the militia. This isn't hard, but here you are....
You did not. Not even close. And the more you write without producing a simple quote to rebut it (i.e., a quote of discussions leading to 2nd A in which a "right" to own weapons for personal use is accepted), the stronger my position becomes. If you want to talk about a different topic, open your own thread.
That's exactly what it says. As I already demonstrated here... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-gun-advocates.585785/page-10#post-1072516064 And yet another post without the simple quote that WOULD rebut my point.
The point you are trying to make is one that doesn't exist in the law, nor is it supported by the Federalists, nor is it supported by a simple reading of the amendment. The right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. For any reason. The responsibility of citizens to respond to the call of the community to defend it is likewise integrated. Again, this isn't hard. Why be so purposefully obtuse here?
Bingo!!! Now.... where did I read that before? Oh! I remember. The OP! Not only were they voted down for the reason you state. Proposals to that effect were ridiculed for exactly the same reason. Like when Noah Webster sarcastically made the case that, if we were to include that, we should also include... “...that Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter’s night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right.” Funny guy!
lol...................... actually, as the clear and plain language of the amendment states, as affirmed by the supreme court and the founders themselves, keeping and bearing arms is the right protected, and it is an individual right, having nothing to do with service in any militia. You have been shown this over and over and over again. Your interpretation has absolutely no basis in law, or the rules of grammar. It's why your argument has lost every single time it's been tried in court.
I'm not trying to make ANY point in the law. I'm making a point about History! It's the reason why this thread is not "Law 101", but "History 101" But you and I are good. You already agreed with my point.
and you've been shown that your point is incorrect. You've been given the direct quotes of the actual men who drafted the amendment. Your point/interpretation/argument remains completely refuted.
No, you're said something entirely different which is your continued BS that no individual right is described. But, you are entirely wrong about this, It was noted because the assumption was that EVERYONE, every citizen, etc had the right to own a weapon. What you're arguing is that only in the condition of being associated to a militia is that the case which is obviously wrong. It's an argument that is not supportable. The act of ownership is inherent. I doubt you understand this. As are the conditions you've noted above, there is no conditionality on inherency here. Those rights, the right to bear arms specifically, shall not be infringed. Period. The right shall not be infringed. Now, tell us why you have so abused the rest of our patience....
Because, as you yourself said, it was voted down. You seem to be having a hard time accepting "yes" for an answer. Once you did your research you arrived at the same conclusion that I did. Get over it! If that's what the facts show then... that's reality.
The research still doesn't support your narrative. And it doesn't support your assertion. That you don't understand the basic facts is what currently is the question here. You don't understand the facts, or are purposefully trying to mischaracterize said facts. It just doesn't make sense that you are still here trying to justify taking away the basic right of the people to defend themselves, or otherwise act in defense of our nation.
Then it doesn't support yours, because the conclusion is exactly the same. It doesn't matter whether or not I understand the facts, because we both arrived at the same conclusion. Looks like you're so terrified of agreeing with me that you would even deny the facts that you yourself discovered through your own research. Just to find something to disagree on. Go figure! But you did find what you found. So I reserve the right to quote you.
You conclusion is like saying, we agree that 2+2 is 4, but the minute you use that as justification that math is racist, you're on your own.
Yeah, right. So after all the blah blah blah, can you support you own statements or not. 3- It is NOT that an individual right to own arms doesn't exist. It does! Thanks to the Heller decision. Not to the 2nd A as written. So for the 4th time, Explain to everyone why you thought that an individual right to own arms was due to the Heller decision. Explain how you came to the conclusion that the Heller decision was legislation, and not a decision to uphold the Constitution as written, even though it actually states that in the decision. It was legislation passed by Scalia Again for the 4th time, Explain how this was legislation (Not a decision to uphold the Constitution) and explain how is was passed by Scalia. Are these questions too tough for you? Why are you running from your own statements in your own thread?
Last time: this is not about Heller. If you manage to change the subject, the thread would be moved by mods to the "Gun Control" forum. This thread is not about Gun Control. Though this thread, and the two about "Linguistics" actually do answer your question, But I don't want it moved to the Gun Control forum. If you want to start a thread about gun control, go for it. But the fact that you can't rebut this one doesn't give you the prerogative to change the subject. And that was the last time I need to tell you this, because you have lost all opportunities to rebut it. So... thanks for your help.
Do you actually think pretending that your position hasn’t been completely refuted makes it true? Lol you’ve been shown, repeatedly, by numerous posters that the men who wrote the actual amendment stated it is an individuals right, not connected with militia service. You’ve been shown, repeatedly, that your position has no basis in law or the rules of grammar. It’s why your argument has lost every single time it’s been tried in court. why do you think pretending all of the above is not true makes it so?
Its no different than him pretending if you ask him any questions about his own statements in his own OP, that somehow the moderators will shut down his thread for going off topic. Thats his way of dodging the less than elementary aspect of his statements. But he does the very same thing in just about every threat he starts. When he gets cornered with his own fake propaganda, he always either takes you out of context or claims you're off topic. And don't ever forget how many times he claims he wins some argument while evading your questions. If he had any credibility in these threads he would man up and answer questions about his own statements in his own thread. Instead these threads become a clown show.
So now its, if you answer a question about YOUR OWN POST, in YOUR OWN OP, on the first page of YOUR THREAD, you will get moved to another location? My two year old grandson comes up with better excuses than that. How fake can this get. Moreover you have made it quite clear you can't even support or allowed to be questioned over your own claims. But its fun watching you dance around it and try and make up excuses. RIIIIIGHT, Heres some flash news for ya, your little propaganda tantrum has been tried for over 200 years and it hasn't provided a single win yet. Just like this idiotic thread. The constitution states, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And the SCOTUS states it means, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Rebut that
The context in which it was written is more appropriate for the "History 101..." thread. Please note that I have moved this post to that thread because it would be off-topic in the "English 101..." discussion. While here I can discuss it at length. And I encourage you to read the OP of this thread. Yes! The 2nd A did result in a collective right. Certainly not what Madison originally intended. But that's what was approved by Congress. Madison's original draft of the 2nd A was The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. Thereby preserving an individual right to be religiously scrupulous of fighting in a war. When the bill came to The House, they modified the text adding prevision "composed of the body of the people" after "well regulated militia". And this is very relevant. Because the Senate wanted to maintain control of who would form part of the militia. And for that reason eliminated those two clauses, and transformed it into what we know today. They specifically didn't want the militia to be composed of the body of the people, as was the English tradition. This was much discussed. Federalists followed Washington's and Hamilton's view that a militia composed of the body of the people would be impractical. The anti-Federalists argued to the contrary. The Federalist view prevailed. Bottom line, the framers were not all of one mind. All of this was amply discussed and the majority decided. But you know one thing that the were almost unanimously against (and, for that reason, was only briefly discussed)? They opposed including an individual right to keep guns for personal use. The few instances when this was brought up it was voted down.
My sig indicates that in the topics I write about here, I do a basic research. On this particular topic, my research has been MORE than basic. I have discussed it (in this and other forums) even with several attorneys. Attorneys know a lot about law. But not so much about history, and certainly not about linguistics. Which are necessary to understand what the 2nd A, as written, would mean to any moderately educated American at the time it was written. So if you think you can counter my points, I will be more than happy to address your arguments. So long as they are on topic. I moved your post here because very little of what you wrote was of any relevance to the thread where you posted. So I URGE you to read the OP in this thread. There was quite a bit in your post that was irrelevant to any of the threads. I underline, this is about the 2nd Amendment as written. Not about ulterior court decisions (like Heller) or about any assumptions, or about common law.... Only about how the wording in the 2nd A are what we read today. So I'll have to skip all those irrelevant parts. I'm not belittling them. It's just that they are irrelevant. For example How courts arrive at their decisions is irrelevant, because this is only about the 2nd A as written. And this particular thread (again: read the OP) demonstrates that the 2nd A does not confer, affirm, state... or in any way address (you can use whatever word you want) an individual right to own weapons. In English 101, I showed that "the right to bear arms" existed because a well regulated militia was necessary. You said in that threat that this was irrelevant, but not that it was inaccurate. So that part appears to be settled (if it isn't, comment in the appropriate thread) And in English 102 we demonstrated that the idiom "keep and bear arms" with no qualifiers (which is how it appears in the 2nd A), in the 18th Century always related to a military scenario. If you want to comment on that, you can do it in the corresponding thread (click here). Absolutely not unambiguous as written. But some of the interpretations HAVE been ambiguous. And Scalia's was outright activist legislation from the bench. But that's a different topic. There is no "common thread". Each Amendment was drafted, discussed, modified, re-written, discussed again, re-written by the House, re-discussed, re-written by the Senate.... And independently discussed and approved by the states. So in some cases, and the 2nd A is one of them, the original intent was changed in the process of being approve. It's a myth to believe that they all respond to the same philosophy. Just like it's a myth to assume that all the framers agreed on the final draft that was approved. But... it's what was approved. It makes no difference what the states were trying to protect. What the SENATE wanted to protect (reference on the OP) was their influence on how the militia was regulated. And protect the militia from being neglected by the states, given that they had no trust in a standing army. It might interest you to learn (again, historian's Amicus Brief reference on the OP), that it was the anti-federalists who supported that argument. They wanted the militia to be composed of "the body of the people". The biggest opponents to that idea were Hamilton and Washington. So anti-federalists holding the position you describe, lost! This idea that the framers "coordinated" the amendments, or that they were all "of one mind" is false. Each one was discussed an approved differently. And the final wording in each has its own particular history. Maybe. But that's not what these threads are about. They are about the 2nd A as written and as it was interpreted at the time it was written. The "phrase" (i.e. the amendment as approved) is the only relevant thing in these threads. If you want to claim (and some have) that there was an individual right to own weapons is a consequence of common law... or anywhere else... fine. But don't say it's because of the 2nd A. Or that the 2nd A even addresses it. It does not! Right! "Bear arms" does refer to a weapon you bear in battle in a military scenario.
Had you actually done any research on the subject you would have known the SCOTUS already ruled on this. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER HELD (5-4) 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. . (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion And thats the end of the story
There is a deep lack of understanding and respect for the words in the Constitution by the party you talked to. Infringed is not written using invisible ink. Everybody understand shall not.
