The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[idb]

Wrong again junior it's always meant that. It supported the OP try again.

Did not

I said that the term to bear arms is a military term and is talking about military grade weapons. The Supreme Court in Miller vs U.S. Lewis vs. U.S. also agree's with me.

*sigh*
You said

The words "to bear arms" is a military term
First let’s look at the Second Amendment
“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.”


Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.

Which was all taken from this link.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappa.html#figvlit
Unfortunately, the conclusion of that link disagreed with the conclusion that you drew from it.

I don't disagree with you about the US vs Miller - I haven't looked at it and I don't care...the basis of your original argument was flawed.
If you had said "according to the US vs Miller the term 'to bear arms' affirms the right of private citizens to possess military weapons" then you may have been right, but you chose the wrong document to back up your argument.
This is my point...I suspect we're discussing two different things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Miller supersedes any and all other rulings. If folks could have military weapons platforms, the mainstream press and right talk radio would be blasting it off the airways. bigrebnc, once again you blew up your OP with evidences that proves you wrong.

You are the only one who does that regularly on this Board.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Which does not give you the right to the weapons platforms of the military.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did not

I said that the term to bear arms is a military term and is talking about military grade weapons. The Supreme Court in Miller vs U.S. Lewis vs. U.S. also agree's with me.

*sigh*
You said

The words "to bear arms" is a military term
First let’s look at the Second Amendment
“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.”


Historically speaking it has always been used as a military term as in military grade weapons. This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson
Figurative v. Literal Usage
"Figurative" and "literal" grammatical and rhetorical terms need some explanation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, which bases its definitions on historical usage since the 12th century and provides historical examples for the major variations in usage, a literal meaning is one in which is "free from figures of speech, exaggeration, or allusion;" that is, one that is used in its literal sense. For example, to "carry arms" in its literal sense means to transport or convey weapons from one place to another. On the other hand, a figurative meaning is one "based on, or involving the use of, figures [of speech] or metaphors; metaphorical, not literal. For example, to "deliver up arms" was a figurative expression for disarming a defeated enemy, often on the field of battle, but only in the broadest sense is the concept of delivering or transferring weapons from the custody of the defeated forces to that of the victors of significance to the meaning of the overall expression.

Which was all taken from this link.
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...
Unfortunately, the conclusion of that link disagreed with the conclusion that you drew from it.

I don't disagree with you about the US vs Miller - I haven't looked at it and I don't care...the basis of your original argument was flawed.
If you had said "according to the US vs Miller the term 'to bear arms' affirms the right of private citizens to possess military weapons" then you may have been right, but you chose the wrong document to back up your argument.
This is my point...I suspect we're discussing two different things.

I realize American English and New Zealand English are similar but your comprehension is lacking. Everything in my first link was talking about bearing arms as a military term.
Let's take the title of the link as an example.
NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE

"TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES

OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT
IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
The other sources I used supported what I said.
Move along now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller supersedes any and all other rulings. If folks could have military weapons platforms, the mainstream press and right talk radio would be blasting it off the airways. bigrebnc, once again you blew up your OP with evidences that proves you wrong.

You are the only one who does that regularly on this Board.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Which does not give you the right to the weapons platforms of the military.

Those are the only weapons protected under the second amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are the only weapons protected under the second amendment.

Which does not lead to you getting to own a weapons platform. I know it,you know it, and God and angels and all witnesses know it. Why do you insist of what is not true? You militia nuts are going nowhere with this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those are the only weapons protected under the second amendment.

Which does not lead to you getting to own a weapons platform. I know it,you know it, and God and angels and all witnesses know it. Why do you insist of what is not true? You militia nuts are going nowhere with this.

Unless you can get U.S. v. Miller you have nothing, any weapons ban is unconstitutional. Any magazine ban is unconstitutional.

From Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Unless you have something to suppport your opinion I take it you're done?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not supported your position that you are entitled to a weapons platform. Hey, go file in federal district court in NC, and see what the judge tells your attorney, who will demand you pay your fee up front. Tell us what you found out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have not supported your position that you are entitled to a weapons platform. Hey, go file in federal district court in NC, and see what the judge tells your attorney, who will demand you pay your fee up front. Tell us what you found out.

From Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Enough said you're done. Anything else from you will be the actions of a little child that can't admitt when he's wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Weapons bans in certain states such as California's .50 BMG rifles ban.
Or Connecticut's Partial ban (selective fire weapons, some .50 BMG variants, an enumerated list of specific restricted features and certain brands of semi-automatic assault weapons and weapon "types".)
Or any other state that has similar restrictions are illegal and should be over turned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not supported your position that you are entitled to a weapons platform. Hey, go file in federal district court in NC, and see what the judge tells your attorney, who will demand you pay your fee up front. Tell us what you found out.

From Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Enough said you're done. Anything else from you will be the actions of a little child that can't admitt when he's wrong.

You are projecting again, militia boy. Miller clearly demonstrates the civilian does not have the right to a heavy weapons platform. Your OP failed on the first page.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have not supported your position that you are entitled to a weapons platform. Hey, go file in federal district court in NC, and see what the judge tells your attorney, who will demand you pay your fee up front. Tell us what you found out.

From Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Enough said you're done. Anything else from you will be the actions of a little child that can't admitt when he's wrong.

You are projecting again, militia boy. Miller clearly demonstrates the civilian does not have the right to a heavy weapons platform. Your OP failed on the first page.

From Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

What would be a militia-type arm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Miller does not do what you want, militia boy. You can't have heavy weapons. And I am very, very glad about that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller does not do what you want, militia boy. You can't have heavy weapons. And I am very, very glad about that.

You're the only one talking about heavy weapons jake. But you can argue all you want U.S. vs. Miller says the only weapons protected under the second amendment are military grade weapons. and U.S. vs. Lewis says that the militia is supposed to furnish their own.

 

[idb]

Miller does not do what you want, militia boy. You can't have heavy weapons. And I am very, very glad about that.

You're the only one talking about heavy weapons jake. But you can argue all you want U.S. vs. Miller says the only weapons protected under the second amendment are military grade weapons. and U.S. vs. Lewis says that the militia is supposed to furnish their own.

And your own quoted document concludes that it may not protect the private use of such weapons - read to the bottom of the page.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Miller does not do what you want, militia boy. You can't have heavy weapons. And I am very, very glad about that.

You're the only one talking about heavy weapons jake. But you can argue all you want U.S. vs. Miller says the only weapons protected under the second amendment are military grade weapons. and U.S. vs. Lewis says that the militia is supposed to furnish their own.

And your own quoted document concludes that it may not protect the private use of such weapons - read to the bottom of the page.

From Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

What would be a militia-type arm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc is quoting out of of context. This document no more supports his OP than did the film or the book he introduced us to in the Hitler was a socialist rant. In fact, the evidence he supports almost always controverts his position.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigrebnc is quoting out of of context. This document no supports his OP than did the film or the book he introduced us to in the Hitler was a socialist rant. In fact, the evidence he supports almost always controverts his position.

I am quoting the qoute made, nothing taken out of contex.

Snippet from Miller vs. U.S.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).
Brief summary
The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.


Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980).

Brief summary
Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)

Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment

The original post with the original link
This study is original historical research and analysis prepared for the Fifth Circuit in US v. Emerson,

RESETTING THE TERMS OF DEBATE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

NEW LIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE PHRASE

"TO BEAR ARMS" BASED ON 300 HISTORICAL USES

OF THE TERM IN A MILITARY CONTEXT

IN EARLY AMERICA, 1618-1791
Resetting the Terms on the Second Amendment:...

Lewis, Miller, and Emerson agree with me, what do you have besides your opinion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The summary made clear that no person could interpret it to justify having access to military heavy weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the summary made clear that no person could interpret it to justify having access to military heavy weapons.

cut and paste where it says that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cut and paste where it says that it does. You can't, because it does not exist. You lose your OP.