How many times must I ask: what is your point? What of that? Do you actually think that throwing in a quote is the same as "making a point"? I know that it's not that you don't understand what that paragraph says, right? But nobody has said that you resolve linguistic inquiries by just making a linguistic query. Nor is that true for the Amicus Brief. So the only alternative explanation is that you have some "historical practice" up your sleeve, that proves that a typical citizen with an average education might have something in mind other than a military context when they read the idiom "bear arms" The text you are quoting doesn't have any. Their point is clear and valid for the scope of that article.. But what is your point for the scope of this discussion?
My bad. I read "basket". But what is that quote from? You're right again. I didn't. The linguists did. Why would you say that linguistics isn't "real science"? Sure is! It follows the Scientific Method. Mathematics is one of the basis for many sciences, but it's not itself a science. It's not based on falsifiable hypothesis. Because that's not what the linguists are claiming. They are claiming that it's what a typical educated citizen would understand when they read the idiom. If those who approved the 2nd Amendment weren't familiar with it, then it makes no difference.
The bill of rights, which includes the 2nd amendment, grants no legislative powers to the general government. The bill of rights was specifically drafted to underscore specific limits on the legislative powers of the general government, over Hamilton's (seemingly prescient) objections. So you'll have to look for your desired legislative powers elsewhere in the document.
You're only calling the majority justices "activist" though aren't you? Not the entire Supreme Court. In which case, "activist Supreme Court" is a strange thing to say. What point?
This is what you said: "The right to own guns is granted by the lack of any constitutional language that would empower congress to enact a law restricting the ability of any of the people of the several states from manufacturing, acquiring, or possessing arms." My point is that the 2nd Amendment does not "grant" a right to own guns. I have said it 100 times. So any statement you make starting with "Teh right to own guns is granted by xxx" makes my point regardless of what "xxx" is. xxx can be anything you want "lack of constitutional language" or the Bible or ... the ... 99th Amendment.... It's besides the point if ti's not "the 2nd Amendment" Problem is that all right-wingers have been trying to change the subject again and again. A clear sign that they cannot address my arguments. You are no exception. The point I'm making is not about "enumerated powers" or "Article 1", or "lack of [this or that] or "what framers wamted" or .... any of all the possible xxx It's a linguistic argument about what the 2nd Amendment actually means in the minds of those who approved it. I completely disagree with your particular xxx. But going into that in this discussion is biting into your red-herring. So I'm not going to do it. In post #887, you quoted me as saying this: "The right to own guns is granted by the lack of any constitutional language." I do not accept or fail to accept anything... It's just besides the point. And "contains no language" is good enough for me. Because the 2nd Amendment (which is the only thing I'm interested in) definitely contains no language granting or restricting the manufacturing, acquiring or owning guns for personal use. That's all. So be careful when you accuse somebody of "dishonesty" only because you didn't understand what the discussion was about.
The "right to keep and bear arms" In other words, the right of the people to defend their country as part of a well-regulated militia from anything that threatens the security of a free state, and to keep arms for that purpose. If anybody wants to argue that there is some general right to own weapons for personal use, they must find it elsewhere. Not in the text of the 2nd Amendment. as written and approved.
You edited my sentence. That was dishonest. The bill of rights grants no legislative powers to the general government. So to say that the 2nd amendment permits the general government to make any particular law is asinine. Only Article I, section 8 allows the legislative branch of the general government to make laws, and there is no legislative power granted therein that would allow a law to be enacted prohibiting the possession of guns by the people of the several states. And that's the case regardless of what the 2nd amendment says.
As has been noted many times throughout the various threads in the Forum, the BOR, including the 2A, doesn’t grant rights, but limits government from making law infringing on (as did the Brits), what was commonly understood at the time, universal individual rights. Individual rights were not priveleges bestowed by Government, but something to be protected from any Government’s purview.
Not only that, but the entire document, even prior to the bill of rights, was carefully negotiated to only give the general government a small set of enumerated legislative powers. Several founders even argued against a bill of rights on the grounds that it might imply that the general government actually had more legislative powers than were enumerated in article I, section 8. Which is why lefties focusing on the 2nd amendment in order to justify government powers is asinine. The 2nd grants the government no powers whatsoever.
I think a good portion of Americans believe rights are granted by the BOR and particularly the 2A, one reason why the left continually pushes alternative narratives for the 2A’s intended meaning on those not understanding the basic principles framed by the Constitution. Of course, if every one ‘knows this’, then, those on the left advocating otherwise are being deliberately deceptive... a definite possibility for many.
They weren't "poor communicators". The preamble is clear as day to understand if one reads what the Founders actually wrote about the right to bear arms, and the usage of "well regulated" is also perfect when used in context. It is only the restrictionists that want to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment from the obvious intent.
Would such an interpretation not simply be read as a right to join the military? If not, then precisely how does the serving in a militia differ from serving in the military? What differentiates the two groups from one another that serves to differentiate militia service from military service?
So, in the end, ALL of your arguments are not about the Constitution, but about rationalizing why you should be able to ignore it.
This is one of the arguments used by gun control advocates that I find particularly egregious. It is basically an attempt to explain away the protections of the Constitution. The Founders themselves stated that should there be any question of their intent one should look back on their statements to know what they meant. The language of the Constitution does not "evolve". It is legally cast in stone; until such time as the people can summon enough of a majority to amend the Constitution. That is what the Founders intended. Claiming the Constitution is a "living document" that is malleable and "evolves" with the times is nothing but an attempt to circumvent it.
In point of fact rights are granted by the people thru a government. No one seems to be able to give me a list that everyone agrees on for the natural rights
"In point of fact" you are dead wrong. Even the courts have ruled that rights are preexisting and in no way dependent upon government for their existence. People are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"... rights people like you seek to dismantle and dismiss. Our Founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution's Bill of Rights, outline the rights our Founders felt most important, and include the right to life, and thus the right to defend that life, codified at least partially in the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. All the Founders agreed and all spoke at length on that particular fact.
