I see the point you are trying to make and admire your creativity. One can argue that we never truly own anything. You never see a hearse towing a U-Haul! I do realize the lengths one must stretch when attacking constitutional rights. Do you have anything showing rented of borrowed guns at the time?
Gosh, one wonders if you would be eligible for a refund at whichever schools taught you so poorly. You make an assumption that frankly isn't a condition of the text, example your assertion that a well regulated militia is "no longer necessary". Perhaps you should look into getting some refunds.
WTF are you talking about? Is this another one of those questions where you demand I back up something I didn't say? If not, then you should know that your rambling is incomprehensible.
Oh dear God! I have known people who fail to grasp metaphor due to haste. But none like you that misses them every time. Whether the ship has docked or not, whether the students finished their project or not or whether the regulated militia is necessary or not... is absolutely IRRELEVANT to my argument. This is about the intended meaning of the sentences. This is like the third time you fail to differentiate between an argument and a metaphor. Recognizing the difference between metaphors, similes, and actual statements is a very basic skill and is frequently tested in reading comprehension assessments at a high school or even middle school level.
Are the following posts metaphors, similes, or actual statements? They certainly fit the criteria of being statements. Now, for your argument to have any validity, you must show a militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. I’m not interested in your personal opinion either. You need to present evidence.
LOL... Your entire premise is that the well regulated militia, in your opinion, is no longer necessary. You in fact wrote that as the predicate for your assertion that you'd remove guns rights to citizens by. And when pointed out, you run away from your own assertion. That isn't "mataphor". that's dishonesty. The words are super clear. Congress shall not infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms. The statement is crystal clear. The right predicates the ability to construct said well regulated militia because the alternative was the abuse that English lordship used to abuse their citizens. This isn't hard, and frankly, you puffing up is pretty ironic given just how poorly you actually perform on this issue. I'd ask others for help getting your refunds for you.
I may question, ask for clarification, or ask for a source, but I make no demands. You took a position attempting to blur a simple term and redefine it to suit your beliefs. It does not appear that anyone is buying it. I get it, you don't like guns. They're bayad, Mkay!
You said this before. As before, you -still- cannot demonstrate your statement to be true. Absent this demonstration, you have no rational basis for your position. As usual.
I've seen more than a few attempts to distort the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment but if I understand yours correctly, you are asserting that one must be a militia member in order to keep and bear arms. In order to properly interpret the writings of the Founding Fathers, one must read and understand their sentiments based on their quotes relating to the issues at hand. So, what is meant by these men when they refer to: "the militia"? Perhaps no one answers that question more simply or more briefly than George Mason in 1788: "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 (1) Even a cursory knowledge of the Founding Fathers reveals that few people recognized the value of an armed citizenry more than those men. Because of today's domestic unrest, gratuitous crime and encroaching government overreach, it is every bit as important that today's law abiding citizens remain armed now as it was in the 1700s (1) "Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers" https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
You see with this exercise in futility how tenaciously some cling to the principle "While I may not be quite right, I'm NEVER wrong!".
No, it's not! My premise might be that IF (hypothetical "if") a well regulated militia weren't necessary, then the 2nd A would be irrelevant. This according to the text of the 2nd A itself as written. I do happen to believe that it's not necessary. But that's just a coincidence. Whether it's necessary or not could be the subject of a different thread but, as it pertains to my point here, it makes absolutely no difference.
So instead of asking clearly ... whatever it was you wanted to know, you go into a diatribe about the word "demand". Obviously you realized I didn't say.... whatever it was you thought I said. This is starting to become a habit of yours. Next time, pay attention before ... "asking", "demanding", "questioning"... whatever you want to call it.
Not exactly. What I'm saying is that the 2nd A, as written, provides for keeping and bearing arms only in the case of a well regulated militia. But that doesn't exclude (nor include) any other possible circumstances in which people should bear arms. Just that the 2nd A doesn't cover them. That's a completely different topic. I'm just explaining what the 2nd A, as written, would mean to any average educated English speaker at the time it was written. Including those who approved it, of course. But my ultimate point is that the 2nd A protects the right to bear arms, which is not the same as the right to own weapons, as Scalia incorrectly. This, not according to me (I wish), but according to every linguist I have ever read who has written about the topic. Some of the examples on the OP are mine. But others are in the Amicus Brief that some of the most renown linguists in this country submitted to the Supreme Court before the Heller decision, and that Scalia simply ignored to draft one of the most activist pieces of legislation ever enacted by the Supreme Court. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_linguists1.pdf
You are welcome to repeat yourself if it makes you happy, but frankly I’m uninterested in hearing it again. I’ve quoted you directly and asked you to provide evidence of the claims in those quotes. You can provide that evidence or, as usual, fold.
Let me guess: He fails to do so and runs away from your challenge. Know why that is? He knows he can't meet it.
I've read and reread your comment in addition to the source you provided closely but remain confused as to what you are ultimately asserting if it is not your contention that one must be a member of a militia to "bear arms". On one hand you say: As you must know, James Mason was not the only one of the Founding Fathers who considered American citizens to be the militia. American citizens, at the time, were considered to be predominately all American White men. However, what is confusing is your 3rd sentence, especially: "But that doesn't exclude (nor include) any other possible circumstances..." If the 2nd Amendment doesn't clearly call for the right of the people (aka militia members) to keep and bear arms, what does? Thanks,
How would you know if I provided evidence to support my claims or not if you don't even know what my claims are? My best guess is that you went back and re-read my posts. And that hopefully, as a result, you now understand what they are. But instead of admitting that you misinterpreted, you now feign being "uninterested". But you understanding them now, albeit a bit late, is good enough for me.
18th Century law 101 for gun advocates: "Preambles had long existed in English lawmaking.... A preamble was supposed to narrow and clarify, not widen, a law.... "It was in response to this understanding of the effect of preambles that Jefferson worked to oppose the insertion of 'Jesus Christ' into the preamble of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Such language, he knew, would narrow the protections of the bill to Christians alone." http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-7.pdf
No! I'm saying that the 2nd A, as written, protects the right as it pertains to a well regulated militia. Any other similar protections, if they exist, may lie elsewhere. But they are not in the 2nd A James Mason? Do you mean James Madison?. In any case, that is irrelevant to my argument. I'm talking about the 2nd A only. To assume that our founding fathers expressed in the 2nd A everything they believed about arms, or militias, or anything of the kind, but didn't explicitly say it in the Amendment, is ludicrous. They can believe many things. But it's just not in the 2nd A as approved by the votes of the States. The 2nd A does most definitely calls for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because "a well regulated militia is [or was... but that's a different topic] necessary to protect the security of a free state. Don't cherry-pick words. The meaning and the intention of the 2nd A is clearly stated in the text as a complete sentence.
No, I read your content previous to commenting. It’s quite clear. Please provide evidence of your claims in the posts I’ve quoted.
Evidence of what? State in your own words a specific claim that you believe I made. And, if I did make the claim, be prepared to either accept my evidence or rebut it using similar evidence.
Do you think you have not made a cogent argument? Here is your claim. Now, without further protestations why don’t you provide evidence of the above claim. You have evidence, correct? Perhaps you do not understand what you are posting. In light of this past statement by you I wouldn’t rule out that possibility. Maybe you need to go back, do some actual research so that you understand the posts you have made here well enough to back them with evidence. Evidence of your claims, Golem. That’s what we want to see.
