- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
But it is. If you're not giving due respect to historical context how could you possibly expect to understand the meaning of an eighteenth century document?
It is historically inaccurate to anachronistically put a modern construction on the constitution, and it takes deep study of the time period to understand the original meaning.
It is not analogous. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art that specifically referred to military service. In its original meaning it does not, as many historically ignorant people think, mean the same thing as simply "hold and own guns."
"The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."
So, you fail this quiz.
Feel free to look up the quote on your own. Just one of many historical examples demonstrating the original meaning of the phrase "keep and bear arms."
It is very common to misunderstand this now obsolete legal term of art, as you do. Don't feel bad, it requires some real study of history to get to the point where you can understand it. I suggest taking the time to study up.
It was not at all uncommon for men to carry pistols on their person in those days, just as it is not at all uncommon now.
You made the claim. The responsibility is on you to provide the evidence. Until you do so, this is just an opinion - an opinion with which the highest court in the land happens to disagree. In other words, folks with some credibility on the matter say that the random guy on the Internet is full of it. Prove them wrong.
I provided plenty of references. This is a well settled historical issue, to the point that the original meaning of the second amendment being militia based is essentially common knowledge.
So it may be helpful not to conceptualize this as a debate. It isn't. That implies a back and forth, with competing position. This is much closer to a lecture than a debate. I am educating you all on historical facts about that second amendment that you are ignorant of.
I provided plenty of references. This is a well settled historical issue, to the point that the original meaning of the second amendment being militia based is essentially common knowledge.
So it may be helpful not to conceptualize this as a debate. It isn't. That implies a back and forth, with competing position. This is much closer to a lecture than a debate. I am educating you all on historical facts about that second amendment that you are ignorant of.
you calling someone ignorant is a stitch given your interpretation of the constitution is almost universally rejected by any constitutional scholar. since a 'well regulated militia' is a creature of government, that entity cannot be relevant to the existence of a right that was believed (and thus incorporated into our laws by the second amendment) to exist PRIOR to the creation of government
you are NOT educating anyone on FACTS but rather your posts continue to demonstrate your position is completely devoid of any basis in constitutional theory, history or most importantly, the beliefs the founders used to create the constitution
See, here's the problem, the willfulness not to read to learn about the subject. It is impossible for the teacher to do his job when the student refuses to do their homework:shrug:You assume much, son. I am far from ignorant on this subject. I can't, however, say the same thing for someone who thinks that the authors of the Constitution didn't know the difference between the words "militia" and "people." The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clearly to protect against the state's militia, rather than to require membership in a militia as a condition of keeping and bearing arms. This is a settled historical matter, verified recently by the Supreme Court.
I am not reading a 71 page PDF file. If you have read it, point to page numbers/quotes that support your position.
See, here's the problem, the willfulness not to read to learn about the subject. It is impossible for the teacher to do his job when the student refuses to do their homework:shrug:
Ultimately, you do need to read all of those articles to get to where I am at. Otherwise, you can accept my synthesis of the information they contain.
See, here's the problem, the willfulness not to read to learn about the subject. It is impossible for the teacher to do his job when the student refuses to do their homework:shrug:
Ultimately, you do need to read all of those articles to get to where I am at. Otherwise, you can accept my synthesis of the information they contain.
So no. Just as I suspected.
I think Turtle more than thoroughly trounced your position. No need kicking a boy when he's down.
It's really on you if you arent willing to read 71 pages to get some understanding of the historical context. This is not a history channel level issue. It is well understood by historians, and I am correct. It isn't a debate, I am simply because explaining a well known fact. I am trying to do you the favor of educating you. If you don't have the desire to receive the educate, you only succeed in persisting in ignorance. Those who are aware of the facts understand that I am correct.
It's really on you if you arent willing to read 71 pages to get some understanding of the historical context. This is not a history channel level issue. It is well understood by historians, and I am correct. It isn't a debate, I am simply because explaining a well known fact. I am trying to do you the favor of educating you. If you don't have the desire to receive the educate, you only succeed in persisting in ignorance. Those who are aware of the facts understand that I am correct.
No, it's a well known fact that you are wrong. I don't have to provide references either because I am right and history is on my side. Like you said, this isn't a debate, this is pissingcontest.com and you just lost.
See how empty and vapid your position sounds? I'm through with you. You're obviously not willing to back up your position because you can't. Let me know if that changes.
That's the problem, I've provided plenty of references and you've obstinately refused to read them. You are simply wrong, your wrongness is apparent to all who are familiar with the subject matter. I have gone above and beyond in an attempt to educate you. Your unwillingness to read and your desire to remain ignorant is your own problem.
That's the problem, I've provided plenty of references and you've obstinately refused to read them. You are simply wrong, your wrongness is apparent to all who are familiar with the subject matter. I have gone above and beyond in an attempt to educate you. Your unwillingness to read and your desire to remain ignorant is your own problem.
You've babbled on for so long about how brilliant your are I've forgotten what stupid argument you were making in the first place. Enjoy baking in your own self proclaimed greatness. I look forward to your witty retort.
For crying out loud, just read the Federalist Papers if you wish to know what the founding fathers (of The Constitution) thought about this. It ain't difficult. No examination of the word is is needed.The bonus question, choice B is where this gets spun. It doesn't say in the 2A "the" free state, it says "a" free state. Back when it was written, well before the standardization of English, it was standard to capitalize both common and proper nouns. Further if "state" was intended to be a proper noun, why is it not plural? The word state as a common noun would refer to a state of mind or a state of being.
You know, I never said anything about being brilliant. The fact that I take the time to read up on the subject doesn't make me brilliant, it just makes me not ignorant.
This is not my own argument, I have read the writings of other, more learned historians and scholars of legal history. It certainly doesn't require any particular brilliance to understand this issue.
There are really two critical points:
1. The prefatory clause informs the entire amendment.
2. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century era term of art referring to martial service, and similar to other legal phrases like "hue and cry" that had a specific legal meaning.
When understood in historical context, it is all pretty clear what the framers understood the sentence to mean, and the modern tendency to interpret it more broadly is an obviously anachronistic misinterpretation.
But gun people are so emotionally invested that they can't be objective:shrug:
For crying out loud, just read the Federalist Papers if you wish to know what the founding fathers (of The Constitution) thought about this. It ain't difficult. No examination of the word is is needed.
A lot of people, lawyers and judges included, make the mistake of falsely imputing modern understandings of words onto the words of laws written hundreds of years ago. That is the major flaw in your analysis. You can't just read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and act like you've got it all figured out. The world is a very different place now than it was back when these document were written. You need to learn the history.
There are really two critical points:
1. The prefatory clause informs the entire amendment.
2. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century era term of art referring to martial service, and similar to other legal phrases like "hue and cry" that had a specific legal meaning.
When understood in historical context, it is all pretty clear what the framers understood the sentence to mean, and the modern tendency to interpret it more broadly is an obviously anachronistic misinterpretation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?