The Right To Bear Arms

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now, there hadn't been grievances about carrying arms around.

I disagree with that. The Gun Powder Incident in of 1774 in Virginia and the Powder Alarm in Massachusetts played a DIRECT role in causing The Revolution.

Well, what I said I wasn't sure if it were the right way of saying it.

But basically there are reasons for those things in the Bill or Rights, and the 2A is clearly about protecting the militia, not about protecting carrying of arms.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service. NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right. In other words, your source sucks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service. NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right. In other words, your source sucks.

No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.

But you're wrong about my source sucking.

Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".

So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.

But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".

Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.

So, I'm asking again.

Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?

 

[2aguy]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service. NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right. In other words, your source sucks.

No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.

But you're wrong about my source sucking.

Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".

So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.

But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".

Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.

So, I'm asking again.

Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?

Yes....you are pretending that the Heller decision, and it's detailed explanation of the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY means "carry" unless you are calling self-defense military service.

 

[2aguy]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service. NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right. In other words, your source sucks.

No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.

But you're wrong about my source sucking.

Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".

So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.

But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".

Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.

So, I'm asking again.

Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?

Yeah....except you don't know what you are talking about....

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar



*2793 At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state."[8] It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"—what he called the law of "self preservation." 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds.2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, § 21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) 2794*2794 ("Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution"); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[9] These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war." See Linguists' Brief 18; post, at 2827 - 2828 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against," which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶ 28 used the phrase: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .") Every example given by petitioners' amici for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists' Brief 18-23. Without the preposition, "bear arms" normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice GINSBURG's opinion in Muscarello said.

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

Petitioners justify their limitation of "bear arms" to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to "keep arms." It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners' inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it except in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only "bear arms" but also "carry arms," "possess arms," and "have arms"—though no one 2795*2795 thinks that those other phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? 83 Texas L.Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those "fit to bear arms" in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, e.g., 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349-351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed.1934). Other legal sources frequently used "bear arms" in nonmilitary contexts.[10] Cunningham's legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs ("Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms"). And if one looks beyond legal sources, "bear arms" was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? 6 Georgetown J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 511 (2008) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of "bear arms" from the founding period).

Justice STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase "bear arms" was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 2828 - 2829, n. 9; Linguists' Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study's collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase "bear arms against," which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as "`bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game'" because those uses are "expressly qualified." Linguists' Brief 24. (Justice STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 2828.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass 2796*2796 (except, apparently, in some courses on linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the Mad Hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use.[11]

 

[2aguy]

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service. NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right. In other words, your source sucks.

No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.

But you're wrong about my source sucking.

Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".

So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.

But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".

Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.

So, I'm asking again.

Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?

Even Supreme Court justice and anti gunner Ruth "buzzy" Ginzburg says you are fucking clueless....

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms."

Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

 

[westwall]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

Your "reasoning" is every bit as retarded as asking what the definition of "IS" is..

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?

Different versions of the Amendment


June 8th 1789

but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 17th 1789


but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
'

August 24th 1789


but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.

But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.

 

[turtledude]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders? what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

Yeah, okay. Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective? Really?

It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd. Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution? This war of words is starting to look desperate.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY means "carry" unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Just to add


Amendment II: William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139



"William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139

1765

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Here we have "having arms for their defence" and then he talks about the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

What does this mean? Self defense for individuals or self defense for "the people", for "the state", for society?

Certainly the term "resistance" seem to be the collective. "self-preservation" could go either way. However the last part about "restrain the violence of oppression" appears to talk about the govt oppressing people, rather than someone trying to rob you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders? what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?

No, my purpose is to find the truth.

I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?

Different versions of the Amendment


June 8th 1789

but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 17th 1789


but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
'

August 24th 1789


but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.

But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.

Again, those different drafts use military service in a distinct fashion from bearing arms.

Why not simply accept the more ordinary meaning of "bear arms" and go about trying to amend the constitution? The war over the text only puts honest observers on guard that you are trying to trick them, and drives them into the arms of the gun lobby.

Gun grabbers want an honest discussion, but come to the table trying to tell us the 2nd's text means something other than the plain meaning. Drop the act. Be honest that you want to disarm everyone, and let the chips fall.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.

You cannot be serious.

Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library

Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution. "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.

Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.

Now, here's the question.

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.

Yeah, okay. Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective? Really?

It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd. Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution? This war of words is starting to look desperate.

What does "themselves" mean?

It's rather vague.

It's an object pronoun. What would you replace "themselves" with here? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It refers to "the people". Are the people individual or a collective? They can be both.

themselves | Definition of themselves in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"reflexive
Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a group of people or things previously mentioned as the subject of the clause.

‘countries unable to look after themselves’"

In the example here, each individual country can't look after itself. "Itself" being the object pronoun. So, they use the plural which is "themselves".

Themselves definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"
They all seemed to be enjoying themselves.
The men talked amongst themselves.
All artists have part of themselves that they can never share with anyone else."

Well this has fucked up and gone italic forever. Great.

Anyway the first one is "enjoying themselves", collective but contains individuals.

The second one, the men are talking among themselves, it's impossible to talk among yourself. So it's collective and not individual.

Like I said, it can be both, ambiguous, because it refers to "them", which can be collective or individual collective.

But you trying to attack me for a "war of words", seriously dude, I'm making my case. If you can't be bothered, just say so and I won't waste my time with you. I really don't come on here to be fucked around. You might not agree with me, fine, but everything I say is logical.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means. That's why dictionary's get written. Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

No, it doesn't. Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.

???? Dear danielpalos
No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.

I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.

I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.

It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.

Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.

If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
then that's your belief. I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!

The natural law that you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.

danielpalos if you want others to respect you
take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.

If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
same to you as a defense mechanism.

this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.

So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
and defend that position.

So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!

The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.

What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.

Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace. The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them. Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get. We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.

If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.

We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.

I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.

Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?

Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?

Thanks danielpalos
and CC also to frigidweirdo
If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.

Thank you!

dear, you don't know what you are talking about. Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.

Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.

No danielpalos sorry
the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
with the Constitution as previously cited above (see Bootney Lee Farnsworth
verbatim citations with emphasis added to show where these apply to federal
The Right To Bear Arms)
but that doesn't mean the federal regulates them from the top down.

I guess you are one of those people who does not
make a distinction between state and federal govt.

If the feds were in charge of all the things the states
can do locally, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.

The feds cannot handle the demand over three states plus PR
over hurricane disaster relief affecting indivudals and businesses.
The demand is too great, and has to be allocated to the states.

Or the people would not get any help waiting in one long line
for federal employees to manage all those decisions.

Same with health care. Same with crime and gun controls.

None of the people or state level agencies shoudl be in the
business of "violating" or conflicting with Constitutional and
national laws But that's NOT the same as federal govt
regulating them!

I find it ironic danielpalos that you argue for your position.
but if it were TRULY the federal govt in charge of regulations,
and if the opposite viewpoint were the one the federal govt took,
then YOUR VIEWPOINT could be ruled as being in violation
of the Constitutional laws and their intent.

so just be glad that isn't how it works.

Of course people and states have the right to regulate themselves
as long as it doesn't violate equal Constitutional protections of others.

So far no states or federal govt has passed any law making it illegal
for people of your belief to influence the regulations on guns.

But if you argue that the federal govt would have a right to regulate
for the states, then that could mean taking away your right to influence
such legislation as part of federal regulations!

you think that wouldn't happen? What do you think happened when Obama and Congress passed and signed the health care mandates FINING people with PENALTIES who didn't have the right to contest or vote on that change in law. The belief that federal govt could regulate health care to that extent was imposed
on everyone else under penalty of law, masked as a tax bill when it wasn't passed and voted on in Congress as a tax bill or the vote would have failed. it was passed as a health bill where that interpretation failed in court.

if you believe in federal govt legislating and regulating to this extent, with no distinction from state govt that represents the local populations separately from the other states doing the same,
then I would argue for your right to be under that if you believe in it.

But that does not give you the right to impose this belief
on others who separate state jurisdiction from federal.
Govt on all levels should still respect Constitutional laws for all people.
But that's not the same as federal regulations from the top down
being inseparable from state jurisdiction.

I'm sorry you don't make this distinction.

It's ironic to me that imposing your beliefs on everyone else
would in itself be a violation of the Constitution
were it not for the SEPARATION of the levels
of federal, state and people. So just by the fact you can make
your argument and have the freedom to do so, comes from the
very separation of authority that allows people and states that freedom.

Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.

Yes danielpalos it is Not argued against but Agreed that the federal govt regulates the US Military . That's why I referred to Bootney's citations that specify what the federal government regulates in the body of the Constitution. No one is contesting that.

As for local groups, the States grant charters to entities that operate within their jurisdictions. Some entities are an extension of US military but some are local to states or cities. Citizen patrols have been organized and supervised by neighborhood associations and local police working with citizens.

danielpalos I don't know if you saw the news stories about the citizens and business owners in Korea Town who had to take up their own arms to patrol their district to prevent looting and rioters from burning down their stores, but the LA police had made the decision not to respond to any 911 calls for 24 hours and just let the fires and mob crime go on at it's height because they would be overwhelmed and endangered .

When Harvey flooding hit multiple areas at once all around Houston, there weren't enough law enforcement nor access to roads to police the homes and neighborhoods so there was a lot of looting in vulnerable districts. I know ppl personally that witnessed or suffered losses.
So this business of only depending on federally regulated law enforcement is not even practical or realistic.

There was a huge difference between Katrina response and Harvey because local citizens took action in their own districts until govt help and responders could organize and intervene.

How many more people would have died if we all waited on federal govt to manage regulate and coordinate everything.

Sorry danielpalos but as diverse as the populations and community systems are across cities and states in America, we need local organization and leadership to represent and meet those needs and demand s. The way human nature works, people need vested ownership in their own programs to ensure accountability and effectiveness.

You may think you want federal govt regulating everything centrally but that is only true when the system Agrees with your beliefs and represents you. The minute federal regulations dictate things against your beliefs, then you and/or others will demand freedom to represent and protect what you believe in from govt imposing otherwise.

So even if you believe in govt regulating these laws federally, it still lands on the people. And just like you who defend your beliefs and arguments, so will the people argue for individual and state rights not to be dictated by federal govt.

Those opponents will fight just as hard to defend their beliefs and interpretation as you do. So you can believe and defend your position as much as you want, but so does the other side have equal right to theirs. So where both sides disagree, it will still land on the people to decide how to resolve the conflict and create policy that satisfies both. It will still come from the people first, before policy is implemented or reformed on either the state or federal levels. The ppl must consent, and you will not get believers in individual rights to agree with your interpretation or belief in giving up those rights to federal govt to regulate on behalf of states.

You can choose to give up your rights to govt, by your own beliefs , but you have no right to compel others to in violation of their rights and beliefs. Only if people commit a crime for which they are convicted by due process can they be deprived of freedom as prescribed by law.

So good luck convincing ppl to give up their rights and beliefs for yours!