Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Feb 18, 2021.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Surely, you already understand this.

    The 2nd protects the "right" to "keep" arms.
    Any possible meaning of "keep", as the term is used in the 2nd, and thus protected by the 2nd, must qualify as a right.
    Any possible meaning of "keep", as the term is used in the 2nd, that does not qualify as a right, is invalid, as the 2nd protects the right to "keep"
    To "possess" a weapon owned by someone other than the possessor is a privilege, not a right, as you do not have a right to anything you do not own.
    To "maintain" a weapon owned by someone other than the person maintaining it is a privilege, not a right, as you have no right to anything you do not own.

    The fact the 2nd protects the right to "keep" arms negates any other possible in-context- interpretations of the term, all of which necessitate that said possession is a privilege granted by someone else; thus, "keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess or maintain anything you do not own - you can be granted the privilege to do so, but not the right.

    Everyone - even you - knows that when you lease or rent something owned by someone else, your privilege to do so is granted, defined and limited by your contract; you have no plenary right that something.
    You can disagree, but it only means you know you present a position you know is false.


    As it took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected better from you.
     
  2. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    8,635
    Likes Received:
    4,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Facts are not nonsense Golem. You provided misinformation. I provided correct information with irrefutable reference.

    You predicated your argument on false information. If the false information was irrelevant to your argument it shouldn’t have been included as part of the argument.

    I hope this serves as an example to everyone. False information is easily exposed by providing solid evidence it is false. You specifically should learn this lesson. If you dispute the content of another poster, it’s your responsibility to provide some evidence they are incorrect. Not just accuse them of attempting to deceive without providing ANY empirical evidence of your own.
     
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I your claim that it can ONLY mean "own", it would be your claim, and your burden to prove. But the second part is self-defeating. So I'm unable to take this seriously.
     
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have a right to drive a car that you leased, and to live in a house that you rent... And you have, not only a right, but (in these cases) an obligation (as per the leasing or rental contract) to have it well kept. Despite the fact that you don't own them.

    Your argument (whatever it is) is self-defeating. But, worse than that, it's irrelevant. Because, own it or not, the 2nd A refers to a well regulated militia in a military scenario.

    So... remind me why it is I'm wasting my time responding to it?

    The text of the 2nd A, as written, does not grant (or guarantee) any right to possess a gun unless it's to bear arms to protect the security of a free state as part of a well-regulated militia. It makes absolutely no difference if you own it, rent it, borrow it, or lease it.
     
  5. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Second Amendment does not say that arms must be personally owned by the people keeping them. Nor does it specify where the arms are to be kept. They could be kept in a communal armory.
     
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WTF? I already corrected it. Despite the fact that I don't even know if it actually is misinformation. And you haven't shown it. And yet, this is like the fourth time after I corrected it that you insist. That is pretty spineless on your part, I would say.

    But you did seem to imply that the 2nd A indicated that people had to buy their arms. Which might have been considered either a misstatement or a misinterpretation, or maybe that you were just going off-topic.... if it weren't for the fact that you have had ample opportunity to correct it, and haven't.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    8,635
    Likes Received:
    4,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My only point in relation to the 2A was that it obviously pertains to personal ownership of firearms. Most people understand that acts like the Militia Act I referenced must be constitutional (it can not conflict with the 2A). It logically follows a law requiring private ownership of firearms and disallowing their seizure FOR ANY REASON has the blessing of the 2A. Thus the 2A absolutely allows for private ownership of firearms.

    Furthermore, if ownership only pertained to militia use, there would have been provisions in the Militia Acts to divest militia members of their weapons once they became too old to serve in the militia. Careful reading of the act shows there are no such provisions.
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it does not. It doesn't pertain to personal ownership at all. It only pertains to what it says: i.e. the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia in order to defend the security of a free state.

    I'm not discussing the Militia Acts. But if that's what you wanted to discuss, I'll pass. Thanks anyway.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which I did.

    The 2nd protects the "right" to "keep" arms.
    Any possible meaning of "keep", as the term is used in the 2nd, and thus protected by the 2nd, must qualify as a right.
    Any possible meaning of "keep", as the term is used in the 2nd, that does not qualify as a right, is invalid, as the 2nd protects the right to "keep"
    To "possess" a weapon owned by someone other than the possessor is a privilege, not a right, as you do not have a right to anything you do not own.
    To "maintain" a weapon owned by someone other than the person maintaining it is a privilege, not a right, as you have no right to anything you do not own.

    The fact the 2nd protects the right to "keep" arms negates any other possible in-context- interpretations of the term, all of which necessitate that said possession is a privilege granted by someone else; thus, "keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess or maintain anything you do not own - you can be granted the privilege to do so, but not the right.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. You have the privileges set forth in your contract. That's why you have a contract and the terms/limits of your use spelled out in same.
    And thus, your concession of the point.
    You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
    You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are fully aware of the fact the 2nd does not say this.
    Why do you make statements you know are false?
     
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which include the right to drive it.

    But... your are still failing to make a point as to the relevance. So... not much more one can comment.

    BTW, the Constitution IS a contract. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau explained: one of the thinkers that most influenced the framers. Just thought it would be an interesting "factoid"

    As for the 2nd A being related to a military-type scenario... no need to prove it. It says so right there... what can I tell ya!
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It says exactly that. Using pretty much the same words.

    Sorry, dude. Trump is out of power. Denying what you see with your own eyes won't help you anymore.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2021
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    8,635
    Likes Received:
    4,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the one who brought up the militia acts when you presented misinformation about who owned militia weapons. You can’t disassociate the ownership issue from the Act requiring the ownership. If you reference ownership of firearms at all in relation to the militia or the 2A you must acknowledge the content of the Militia Act, without which there would not have been a formal militia at all.

    The arrow to the heart of your argument was contained in my last post. If the 2A only applied to arms used for militia duties, the Militia Act would have had to contain provisions for divesting ex-militia of their weapons.
     
  15. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    5,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a current definition of what a militia is in US Law.


    10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
    (a)
    The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b)The classes of the militia are—
    (1)
    the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2)
    the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
     
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    24,173
    Likes Received:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes and?
     
  18. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    5,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your idea of a Militia is not consistent with the militia definition provided by existing US law and we don't need another definition.
     
  19. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Oh, so pedantic then. Gotcha.
     
  20. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    8,635
    Likes Received:
    4,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your ignorance of bringing up the Acts is not the same as you not bringing them up. I am the first to mention them by name. But information you were providing is based on the Acts. You invoked them unknowingly.

    Of course if you followed your sig line and actually had a baseline level of knowledge you would have known your content was based on the relationship between the 2A and the militia acts. It’s quite likely you were not aware of the Militia Acts at all. If you had been you would not have made your false claim that weapons were usually provided to militia members, not privately owned.

    This is why you should not try to discuss subjects you know nothing about. When you do what you are doing here, parroting something you read somewhere by an anti gunner who withholds details and facts from you to convince you of his opinion, you end up discussing things like the Militia Acts you don’t know exist/existed.

    This is what happens when you appeal to authority Golem. You parrot inaccuracies based on baseline information that’s been withheld from you by those “authorities” you appeal to. Then, when you try and debate someone who’s educated on the subject, you mention things you don’t know the background of (here ownership of firearms by public and private individuals based on text of the 2A and the Militia Acts).

    You reference the militia acts any time you attempt to discuss ownership in relation to the 2A. They are incontrovertibly linked. Your ignorance of that fact is not me introducing the concept, it’s you introducing the concept unknowingly.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  21. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    386
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Members of the militia were often required to purchase their own weapons. But that's not the point. It happened that way because it was the most practical way to arm the militia. The federal government did not have an arsenal of millions of firearms which it could use to arm the militia.

    Guns in the 18th Century were not solely private property anyway. Impressment was common: firearms were confiscated from individuals and given to Washington's army. Guns could also be confiscated from individuals who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to their state.
     
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your statement, above, is false, and you know it is false.

    Your words:
    [the 2a] says: the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia in order to defend the security of a free state.
    Text of the 2nd:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Why do you make statements you know are false?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  23. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    5,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think so. There is a big difference between the current USC legal definition of a militia (any citizen over 17) and your concept of a militia being registered with the Government.
     
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Incorrect. You have the privilege to drive it, because the owners grants you that privilege. You have no right whatsoever to a car you rent.
    You know this statement is not true, proven by the fact you have run away from a point you tried to make and proven unsound..
    You know this statement is not true, as you know the 2nd says no such thing.

    If you took a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make so many statements you know to be false?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    40,250
    Likes Received:
    14,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This statement is false.
    If you took a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make so many statements you know to be false?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021

Share This Page