The restriction of bearing:
1 doesn’t necessitate carrying. You can bear a load by pulling it. You can bear responsibility. I can bring a cannon to bear. I can bear a cannon with my truck. In context physical carry as a qualification is absurd. I have morse guns that I could carry, got to get rid of some I guess…[/quote]
Now you’re just making it up as you go along. To “bear” means to “hold up” or “support”. You don’t “bear” a cannon with your truck, not as the word is commonly understood by reasonable people. This is just getting silly - you’re just trying to redefine and re-contextualize the ordinary meaning of words to fit your political agenda.
Congratulations. You’re a left-winger.
[/quote]
No, because in context of the entire text, it’s the only way that makes sense.
It is a numerated restriction, on the government, not the person with the weapon. It is a negative right. The right to keep and bear, doesn’t necessitate that you have to.
Here’s the problem - you’re going out of your way for an unreasonable reading of the words. There is no redundancy - only a common-sense recognition that the feds can’t restrict the right to keep and bear arms. They could have stopped at “keep” - but then, that creates a negative inference that the feds can do something other than restrict you from “keeping” them, like using them. Clearly, they did not.
Well, if you wanted to substitute “bear” with “use lawfully”, then you have opened up another problem - what does lawfully mean? Does that mean the feds have reserved the right to define “lawful” so as to control your use? If you took that meaning to be the case, then the feds do have a right to restrict your right, because they get to decide what “lawful use” means. That wasn’t the point of the Second Amendment, I think we can all agree.
Words mean something, and they mean what they mean. They don’t mean what we really, really, really want them to mean.
Not to mention he also essentially claims that the authors were dumb and added a superfluous statement to the beginning of the amendment that couldn’t possible mean anything.[/quote]
I never said the authors were dumb or that the prefatory statement was superfluous - I said it was constrained by the second statement, which it is. The prefatory statement is important - it establishes the purpose for the restriction on the federal government.
Not to mention he also essentially claims that the authors were dumb and added a superfluous statement to the beginning of the amendment that couldn’t possible mean anything.[/quote]
I never said the authors were dumb or that the prefatory statement was superfluous - I said it was constrained by the second statement, which it is. The prefatory statement is important - it establishes the purpose for the restriction on the federal government.
Good Lord. C’mon, up your game.[/quote]
Do I need to go back and quote where you were saying it could say pretty much anything and wouldn’t make a difference?
You have the right to “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I assume you take that to mean peaceable assembly is only protected if you are petitioning for a redress of grievances? Other peaceable assembly is not protected huh?
For the umpteenth time, I’ve said Scalia’s position is my minimalist position. I keep saying this and for some unknown reason you continue to ignore it. READ, my good friend, READ.[/quote]
Uh, no - I provided direct Scalia quotes that contradict your position and asked you to agree or disagree with them, them being:
States can regulate arms to an extent based on their historical ability to do so. Agree with Scalia, or no?
The Second Amendment does not provide the right to an arm that cannot be hand-held. Agree with Scalia, or no?
You keep dodging these, which are believed by Scalia and contradict (I think) your position - therefore, you do not share Scalia’s position. Stop shuffling and dissembling - just give me yes or no answers. I’ll handle the rest.
Wow. Well, you’re wrong, but let me guess, Push - you’re unaware of the states’ constitutional rights in the exercise of police powers in the name of public safety, welfare and morality? Here is a short primer, and bonus points for the fact that police powers are an inherent power as a matter of states’ rights, which you claim to be a champion of:
This is getting comical. States don’t have broad authority to regulate in the name of public safety? Really? Really?. Did you just write that?
Do I need to go back and quote where you were saying it could say pretty much anything and wouldn’t make a difference?[/quote]
For your “rival” theory, no, it doesn’t make a difference, because the second statement cannot be read out of existence.
Why would I? Isn’t there a comma after “assemble”?
And, setting basic grammar aside, use common sense and basic reasonableness - the language says “and”, no “in order to”, and the second statement doesn’t modify or qualify the first one. These are items in a list.
Then you absolutely cannot argue against fully automatic hand held weapons, can you?
Can you?[/quote]
From a federal regulation standpoint? No, I don’t think so. But then, I never have.
Can they burden ownership through taxation? Yes, because they have the constitutional right to tax - up to a point.
EDIT: I should say re: federal regulation: I think there can be some limitation, though, based on the fact that the right is not unlimited (no right is). I just don’t think that fully automatic hand held weapons are necessarily off-limits as a category. Example: if DC (federal jurisdiction) passed a law that a mentally ill person does not have a right to a weapon, despite the federal prohibition, DC wouldn’t be prohibited doing so, or if DC said you can’t being a firearm into a public school.
Do I need to go back and quote where you were saying it could say pretty much anything and wouldn’t make a difference?[/quote]
For your “rival” theory, no, it doesn’t make a difference, because the second statement cannot be read out of existence.
Why would I? Isn’t there a comma after “assemble”?
And, setting basic grammar aside, use common sense and basic reasonableness - the language says “and”, no “in order to”, and the second statement doesn’t modify or qualify the first one. These are items in a list.
C’mon. Seriously.[/quote]
You are the one failing basic grammar. Stating you cannot infringe on x and y, in no way logically or grammatically dictates you can infringe on them independently.
You are the one failing basic grammar. Stating you cannot infringe on x and y, in no way logically or grammatically dictates you can infringe on them independently.[/quote]
Huh? That’s incoherent.
And, no, the basic grammar of the First Amendment does not qualify or condition the right to peaceably assemble to the right to petition for grievances. They are items in a list, separated by a comma, and your reading wouldn’t make sense to a reasonable person - it would not protect the right to peaceably assemble for other purposes, and it would not protect the right to petition for grievances outside of peaceably assembling (such as conducting a letter writing campaign by yourself).
You are the one failing basic grammar. Stating you cannot infringe on x and y, in no way logically or grammatically dictates you can infringe on them independently.[/quote]
Huh? That’s incoherent.
And, no, the basic grammar of the First Amendment does not qualify or condition the right to peaceably assemble to the right to petition for grievances. They are items in a list, separated by a comma, and your reading wouldn’t make sense to a reasonable person - it would not protect the right to peaceably assemble for other purposes, and it would not protect the right to petition for grievances outside of peaceably assembling (such as conducting a letter writing campaign by yourself).[/quote]
Really? So, if one were to make a list of 2 items, how would that be written?
States traditionally have had some authority but have never had broad authority in this area.[/quote]
False, states have as much authority as they assign themselves - they are responsible for their own constitutions, and add and subtract as they see fit. Which means, sport, that they do, in fact, have the authority to be broad or limited as they want with gun laws. They are not (properly) required to do anything with their own laws because of federal law.
States have whatever authority they give themselves - when you say “they don’t have authority”, you’re exactly incorrect - they have all the authority they want. They just have recognized the importance of the right and put in their constitutions.