YOU claimed it was superfluous here... "... there was no reason" is what I define as "superfluous". As for myself, I don't think it was superfluous. I think it's superfluous NOW, but not then. In any case, i think this part of the discussion is becoming a bit childish. So I'll leave it there...
@Golem : I was stating the position of some of the federalists and you pretend I was saying that? LOL
Didn't miss it at all. I checked it against your two previous responses to figure out what your answer would be, and they coincided. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-bear-arms.586083/page-68#post-1074684724 In any case, like I said, this has devolved into the world of the really childish. If you have any REAL arguments, let me know
you can put your hands over your eyes and claim you have never read any points that rebut your rather curious misinterpretations of the second amendment too
Scalia used linguistics and historical arguments to justify Heller. So I consulted what real linguists and real historians said about the 2nd A. And I am explaining what they say. Basically that what Scalia wrote is... not even "curious misinterpretations", but outright made up CRAP. So... again. If you have any response to the arguments I have submitted, let me know. If you don't... then that's that. And in 3 years, not just you, but EVERYBODY who has tried has not gone any further than you have: calling the arguments by REAL experts in the fields in which Scalia is NOT an expert, "curious". But no rebuttal. So looks like the best source for History and Linguistics are, interestingly enough, not attorneys... but Historians and Linguists. Whodda thunk!
Scalia was trying to placate an erratic Justice Kennedy. So you want to pretend that linguists are "experts" and those who graduated first in their class at Harvard Law are not when in comes to constitutional law. You cherry pick irrelevant nobodies because they sort of support your erroneous interpretation of the second amendment. The best your pseudo experts can come up with is a claim that keep and bear mainly addressed military usage which is hardly surprising in a society that just went through a war
Linguists are experts in language, historians are experts in history and lawyers are expert in laws. If Scalia had stuck to HIS area of expertise OR if he had used the resources made available to him by REAL Historians and Linguists, these threads wouldn't exist. But he didn't. Instead, to try to justify his ambition to legislate from the bench, he made up his own linguistics and cherry-picked historical facts ignoring the most relevant one, just like you're trying to do here: that gun ownership was NEVER even mentioned in the deliberations in Congress leading to the adoption of the 2nd A.
yet the best you can do is cite some linguists who claim most usages of keep and bear was military in nature and since no one has a right to be part of a federally controlled militia, that would render the second worthless (which of course is the goal of the anti gun left). You and those linguists never can rebut Kates' position that even if militia use was the main reason, it does not exclude other reasons and in terms of practicality, it cannot
The best ANYBODY can do to address arguments base on linguistics, is to cite linguists. A "strawman" exists when you argue against a statement that NOBODY has made. And nobody has said anything about "exclude". The fact that you rely now only on logical fallacies proves my case!
this is a legal issue, that you rely on "experts" chosen because one interpretation of their views sort (and I repeat-at best sort of) support you erroneous attempt to redefine the rights protected in the second amendment, is not persuasive
The post was bearing arms in a militia is a collective activity. I replied bearing arms outside of a militia is also a collective activity. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Heller decision.
I see. So you're basically saying that if it's a legal issue, judges are allowed to fabricate historical and linguistic facts that conform to their pre-established judgement to justify their decision. There is NO interpretation involved in the FACT that "keep arms" and "bear arms" referred to a military scenario at the time the time the 2nd A was drafted. Or that "owning firearms" was NEVER mentioned in the debates in Congress leading to the 2nd A. These are the FACTS. If Scalia wanted to use these FACTS and interpret them as legally meaning that the framers wanted to protect the right to own guns... fine. But he DIDN'T he simply ignored them and made up complete NONSENSE to justify his decision.
WRONG-there were plenty of instances where it was used in a non military context. Keep and bear includes OWNING. you know that and I know that
Oh! Don't make me laugh. The Socratic method is not an excuse for binary thinking. Please don't even try...
what a silly argument free speech means you don't have to speak freedom of religion also means you don't have to believe the right of assembly means you have a right NOT TO Assemble with some others but the right to keep and bear arms means the government cannot interfere with your ownership etc of arms
I have NEVER known of anybody who invokes the 1st A to refuse to answer questions in, for example, a trial...
I don't know "keep and bear". I'm only talking about "keep and bear arms". However, your insistence in arbitrarily parsing the idiom is clear sign that you can't respond to the REAL expression used.
Did Scalia fabricate his own grammar rules? "In the Heller case, he argued that the two parts divide naturally into a 'prefatory clause' and an 'operative clause.' He slips here because he’s now inventing his own grammatical language. He went on to say that the 'prefatory clause' about the militia is just a clarifying 'preamble' or 'prologue,' while the more important 'operative clause' grants Americans 'an individual right to keep and bear arms.' That’s when he completely misunderstands the organic connection between the two parts of the sentence.... "The Second Amendment doesn’t say we can’t own guns to go hunting or maybe even to defend ourselves when necessary, but the right for such purposes can be infringed, as already happens with the constriction of times of year and kinds of guns we can own to shoot elk. The Second Amendment uses the absolute construction borrowed from Latin to give us the reason and occasion for the main command of the sentence—when and why the right to keep and bear arms for a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed.... "Absolute constructions also aren’t grammatical fossils irrelevant to current English. Today, we still use sentences that contain free-floating absolutes to modify verbs in the same way that is done in the Second Amendment. These are familiar phrases such as 'all things being equal,' 'everything being considered,' 'weather permitting,' 'God willing,' 'that being the case.' " https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/guns-and-grammar-or-how-to-read-the-second-amendment/ "Weather permitting, the picnic will be held at the park." I don't think a reasonable interpretation of that sentence would be that a picnic will be held at the park under other circumstances than good weather for a picnic. Since Heller, it's been common to hear the terms "prefatory clause" and "operative clause" in pro-gun circles, but I don't think you'll find those terms in a real grammar book.
can you find anything in the constitution that supports the mythical view that the founders believed the new federal government should have the power to restrict what arms private citizens could possess, bear, own, keep buy or sell?
Your side may want to stick with that argument then. It takes a lot less mental effort to make than arguing that an amendment intended to assure the Anti-Federalists that the state militias would be armed also protected an individual right to own and use guns for private purposes. But if you go that route you're SOL when it comes to state gun control. Pick your poison.
