[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Really? So, if one were to make a list of 2 items, how would that be written?[/quote]
Well, the way it as written the First Amendment, where one item is not a preface to a second item, and they are textually independent of one another.
C’mon. Are you done?[/quote]
Does that mean the government can inflict cruel punishment as long as it’s not unusual?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Where can we find this documented.[/quote]In a dictionary. >>>[/quote]Look man. You’re far too smart for this. Words are used constantly, and have been forever, in ways that are not in keeping with their strict etymological history or dictionary definition. Usage determines meaning. I learned that from bible study. Besides, the 1828 Websters dictionary has the following in it’s list of definitions for the word “bear” “12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.” Bear [ BEAR, v.t. pret.bore; pp. born,borne. [L. fero, pario, porto. The ... ] :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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. >>>[/quote]I’m not going outta my way to do anything and have said repeatedly that “I could be wrong”. Someone beating upon an 18th century door and saying “we come bearing arms”, would have meant very much more than “we are physically holding weapons in our hands” by that declaration. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:I may be wrong, but I always took the word “bear” to mean essentially the same thing as “wield” or “put to deadly use as per their design if a lawful need were to arise”. Simply put to “use lawfully”. That is still somewhat of a redundancy, but not nearly on the same level as “bear” being defined “holding in one’s hands”. Like I say. I could be wrong.[/quote]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.[/quote]Of course the government has not only the the power, but the DUTY to declare and enforce the lawful use of weapons. Even biblically speaking. I am NOT a libertarian. Remember? And Yes. Words DO mean something and their usage in a given period and particular cultural and circumstantial context determine their meaning in that given period and particular cultural and circumstantial context. Not necessarily the dictionary 200 years hence.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Too murky for me to give a definitive answer.[/quote]
You can’t tell me if you agree with Scalia, or not?
Well, sure, he has on non-hand-held weapons. Do you agree with him?
Look, trying to change the subject doesn’t work on me. You want to talk about the constitutionality of powerful hand-held weapons and how it is not yet decided and is “murky” - that isn’t the question.
Scalia says non-held-hand weapons aren’t covered. Agree with him? Or not? That isn’t murky.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Where can we find this documented.[/quote]In a dictionary. >>>[/quote]Look man. You’re far too smart for this. Words are used constantly, and have been forever, in ways that are not in keeping with their strict etymological history or dictionary definition. Usage determines meaning. I learned that from bible study. Besides, the 1828 Websters dictionary has the following in it’s list of definitions for the word “bear” “12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.” Bear [ BEAR, v.t. pret.bore; pp. born,borne. [L. fero, pario, porto. The ... ] :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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. >>>[/quote]I’m not going outta my way to do anything and have said repeatedly that “I could be wrong”. Someone beating upon an 18th century door and saying “we come bearing arms”, would have meant very much more than “we are physically holding weapons in our hands” by that declaration. [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:I may be wrong, but I always took the word “bear” to mean essentially the same thing as “wield” or “put to deadly use as per their design if a lawful need were to arise”. Simply put to “use lawfully”. That is still somewhat of a redundancy, but not nearly on the same level as “bear” being defined “holding in one’s hands”. Like I say. I could be wrong.[/quote]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.[/quote]Of course the government has not only the the power, but the DUTY to declare and enforce the lawful use of weapons. Even biblically speaking. I am NOT a libertarian. Remember? And Yes. Words DO mean something and their usage in a given period and particular cultural and circumstantial context determine their meaning in that given period and particular cultural and circumstantial context. Not necessarily the dictionary 200 years hence.
[/quote]
And for the record, despite the constant claims and straw men presented by TB, I’m actually arguing an interpretation of the amendment I don’t completely agree with. Unlike most people here, I’m not reading what I want it to be. I’m reading what is there, despite what I believe.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Look man. You’re far too smart for this. Words are used constantly, and have been forever, in ways that are not in keeping with their strict etymological history or dictionary definition. Usage determines meaning. I learned that from bible study. Besides, the 1828 Websters dictionary has the following in it’s list of definitions for the word “bear” “12. To possess and use as power; to exercise; as, to bear sway.” Bear [ BEAR, v.t. pret.bore; pp. born,borne. [L. fero, pario, porto. The ... ] :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com [/quote]
No, really - originalist jurists often look to dictionaries from the era to consider the meaning and usage of words. Modern dictionaries, too. And, look at the first usage in the 1828 definition you cite as it pertains to physical objects. Just use common sense.
Well, that’s fine, but that is doing something other than looking at original intent. If the Constitution has “evolved” to say things it ought to say instead of what it says or historically was originally understood to say, then say that.
If you look at yesteryear’s dictionary and a modern dictionary and apply common sense, you just won’t find much support for the idea that you get to own and use any weapon on your choice.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And for the record, despite the constant claims and straw men presented by TB, I’m actually arguing an interpretation of the amendment I don’t completely agree with. Unlike most people here, I’m not reading what I want it to be. I’m reading what is there, despite what I believe.[/quote]
I haven’t offered any straw men - I haven’t assigned you a position you don’t have.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And for the record, despite the constant claims and straw men presented by TB, I’m actually arguing an interpretation of the amendment I don’t completely agree with. Unlike most people here, I’m not reading what I want it to be. I’m reading what is there, despite what I believe.[/quote]
I haven’t offered any straw men - I haven’t assigned you a position you don’t have. [/quote]
You have created the false argument that I only read certain things in it because I believed them first, call it what you want. You have attributed statements and beliefs to be that do not exist.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Does that mean the government can inflict cruel punishment as long as it’s not unusual?[/quote]
Well, yes, as that term of art was originally understood. Anything else?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have created the false argument that I only read certain things in it because I believed them first, call it what you want. You have attributed statements and beliefs to be that do not exist.[/quote]
You actually don’t believe in your “rival” theory of the Second Amendment you’ve been arguing here?
Well, what exactly do you believe, then?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Does that mean the government can inflict cruel punishment as long as it’s not unusual?[/quote]
Well, yes, as that term of art was originally understood. Anything else?
[/quote]
So the courts numerous renderings on the eighth amendment based on the cruelty alone are wrong?
If the fed wrote a law that the punishment for everything was being burned to death, it wouldn’t be against the 8th amendment, because it wouldn’t be unusual.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have created the false argument that I only read certain things in it because I believed them first, call it what you want. You have attributed statements and beliefs to be that do not exist.[/quote]
You actually don’t believe in your “rival” theory of the Second Amendment you’ve been arguing here?
Well, what exactly do you believe, then?
[/quote]
Depends on how you ask and what other changes I could make.
The way the federal government and military are run now, the militia clause is dumb. According to the second amendment, we aren’t a free state, because there is no militia.
If we got back to real state regulated militia’s, I’d agree with what’s there, but I don’t see that happening.
However, I do believe arms for self-defense should be added to the protections.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So the courts numerous renderings on the eighth amendment based on the cruelty alone are wrong?
If the fed wrote a law that the punishment for everything was being burned to death, it wouldn’t be against the 8th amendment, because it wouldn’t be unusual.[/quote]
Well, where does the phrase “cruel and unususal” mean? Did the drafters just add it to the BOR and say “whatever you think cruel and unusual means, it means”? Or did the phrase come from somewhere and have a particular meaning?
Honestly, I don’t have the patience to wait on you to use Google. See here, under the “History” section for a primer:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So the courts numerous renderings on the eighth amendment based on the cruelty alone are wrong?
If the fed wrote a law that the punishment for everything was being burned to death, it wouldn’t be against the 8th amendment, because it wouldn’t be unusual.[/quote]
Well, where does the phrase “cruel and unususal” mean? Did the drafters just add it to the BOR and say “whatever you think cruel and unusual means, it means”? Or did the phrase come from somewhere and have a particular meaning?
Honestly, I don’t have the patience to wait on you to use Google. See here, under the “History” section for a primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment[/quote]
Yeah, if you notice they list out things that can qualify and have cruel and unusual separate. They rule it unconstitutional if it is either cruel OR unusual. They have ruled things unconstitutional on the sole reason that they are unusual and the sole reason that they are cruel. They have ruled that it protects us from either.
"
The “essential predicate” is “that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity,” especially torture.
“A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.”
“A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.”
“A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.”
"
The very fact that they have used the 8th to overturn COMMON practices proves my point explicitly.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< Well, that’s fine, but that is doing something other than looking at original intent. If the Constitution has “evolved” to say things it ought to say instead of what it says or historically was originally understood to say, then say that. >>> [/quote]No sir. That is NOT what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting the 2nd amendment may have originally allowed for the private ownership and use of weapons whose modern equivalents could not possibly have been foreseen and subsumed under that original intent. It’s weaponry that has evolved. Not the constitution. In other words what if at least part of original intent WAS to enable the citizenry to repel tyranny, but that the ensuing 220 years of technological advancement has rendered that principle no longer possible. It can’t be both? Could be just me, but I’m not real keen on either the government that’s on it’s way OR somebody with artillery pieces that can take out a house ten miles away. What’s the solution? You tell me LOL! [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< If you look at yesteryear’s dictionary and a modern dictionary and apply common sense, you just won’t find much support for the idea that you get to own and use any weapon on your choice. [/quote]See above and beyond to previous pages. I have never once advocated this. I might not be as good a communicator as some have, it appears falsely, led me to believe. Or I have some mystical effect on people where I repeatedly say things that stay on web pages for all to see and guys somehow see the diametric opposite. It’s not just you. Don’t take it that way.
I’m playing with the following possibility:
[b]1. Founders in 1789>>>: We want the citizens to be enabled to stop this government by force at some possible future point if need be. Let them have weapons like ours for this purpose (among others).
USA 2012:^^^^Impossible^^^^
Now what?[/b]