Right to Arms in the 21st Century

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.[/quote]

You are fine with that, well, then that settles it. Scratch the second Bismark is cool with the Swiss approach so…

You literally have no clue what you are talking about in regards to te purpose of militia forces in the United States.[/quote]

Which expands it from its current state.

Enlighten me then Mr. High Speed Low Drag Operator. What have I got wrong?

202

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.[/quote]

You are fine with that, well, then that settles it. Scratch the second Bismark is cool with the Swiss approach so…

You literally have no clue what you are talking about in regards to te purpose of militia forces in the United States.[/quote]

Which expands it from its current state.

Enlighten me then Mr. High Speed Low Drag Operator. What have I got wrong? [/quote]

I already have regarding the militia. Go back and read the paper I posted.

Also go fuck yourself.

203

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.[/quote]

usmccds423 wrote:

"Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged. "

It’s implied. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the calculus of war. They aren’t merely an evolution of conventional munitions. They fundamentally changed international relations and strategy.
[/quote]

Oh oh, it’s implied… get the fuck out of here. [/quote]

So much vitriol. I seem to have struck a nerve. Do you not consider nuclear weapons to be fundamentally different from conventional explosive munitions? Do they not convey unparalleled and profound stategic effects? Your initial post seems to indicate that you do not. Why on God’s green earth would they fall under the second amendment?

204

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.[/quote]

usmccds423 wrote:

"Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged. "

It’s implied. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the calculus of war. They aren’t merely an evolution of conventional munitions. They fundamentally changed international relations and strategy.
[/quote]

Oh oh, it’s implied… get the fuck out of here. [/quote]

So much vitriol. I seem to have struck a nerve. [/quote]
Douche bags often do.

[quote]
Do you not consider nuclear weapons to be fundamentally different from conventional explosive munitions? [/quote]

Yes, they are different. They have only been used 2 times in 70 years.

[quote]
Do they not convey unparalleled and profound stategic effects? [/quote]
They do.

[quote]
Your initial post seems to indicate that you do not. [/quote]

If you don’t understand a posts should you:

A) Just say the poster is wrong, or
B) Ask for clarification.

[quote]
Why on God’s green earth would they fall under the second amendment? [/quote]

Because that is how the second amendment is written… Strategic effect has ZERO to do with what is written in the second. It is written in plain English for all to see.

205

Nuclear weapons are literally referred to as nuclear arms.

206

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.[/quote]

usmccds423 wrote:

"Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged. "

It’s implied. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the calculus of war. They aren’t merely an evolution of conventional munitions. They fundamentally changed international relations and strategy.
[/quote]

Oh oh, it’s implied… get the fuck out of here. [/quote]

So much vitriol. I seem to have struck a nerve. [/quote]
Douche bags often do.

[quote]
Do you not consider nuclear weapons to be fundamentally different from conventional explosive munitions? [/quote]

Yes, they are different. They have only been used 2 times in 70 years.

[quote]
Do they not convey unparalleled and profound stategic effects? [/quote]
They do.

[quote]
Your initial post seems to indicate that you do not. [/quote]

If you don’t understand a posts should you:

A) Just say the poster is wrong, or
B) Ask for clarification.

[quote]
Why on God’s green earth would they fall under the second amendment? [/quote]

Because that is how the second amendment is written… Strategic effect has ZERO to do with what is written in the second. It is written in plain English for all to see. [/quote]

So a private American citizen has a constitutional right to produce and maintain chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons? To what end? Is his doing so necessary to the security of a free State?

Yes, in an era of small arms and 18th century artillery. Tactical weapon systems, to be sure. It should, considering that their use, even by non-state actors, could literally lead to an extinction event.

207

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Nuclear weapons are literally referred to as nuclear arms.[/quote]

One could make the same argument for chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Does this mean Joe Schmoe should be able to manufacture and maintain them?

208

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.[/quote]

I think this would be fine too. I don’t think, however, the 2nd Amendment should be retooled to mean that this was the “original intent” nor should any retooling occur that restricts existing gun rights to those who don’t participate in this program.
[/quote]

I’m surprised. I do not agree. I think it would be a bad idea to force males that want to be armed to undergo army training and then serve some quazi militia reserve duty for 12 years. The enormous cost of such a program is one thing. The central government training the state militia’s is another thing entirely. Bad idea, imo. Circumvents the entire counterbalancing purpose of the militia. [/quote]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have power

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Section 10, Clause 3: Compact Clause

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Militia Act of 1792

“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, … every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.”

What more is needed outside the National Guard and State Defense Forces?

212

Anyone ever recall reading about Congress attempting to confiscate cannons people took back home after the Revolutionary War?

I vaguely remember something like that. I don’t remember where I read it though.

213

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged.

[/quote]

That’s patently false given the systemic and strategic implications of nuclear weapons. They aren’t simply an improved version of conventional air power, which itself has been dubbed “flying artillery”. Nuclear weapons writ large are not tactical, they are inherently strategic. Anyone versed in the basics of strategy can attest to that. [/quote]

And I’m sure you, having never put a uniform on, are versed in said strategy, right? [/quote]

I suppose you’ve never heard of the likes of Benard Brodie? Which means you really don’t have an informed opinion on the matter. ^ doesn’t change that you’re very incorrect in this instance. They teach the nuances of nuclear strategy at MRCD or in your MOS training? I’m literate enough to understand that they are not merely an improved version of existing weapon systems. By the way, the existence of civilian strategists are not only commonplace, but a necessity, as strategy is the bridge between military means and political ends. This is widely taught at the staff level at the war colleges. Refer to Elliot Cohen’s Supreme Command. [/quote]

Uhuh, I can see your reading skills have still not improved.[/quote]

The salient points remain - nuclear weapons cannot be treated as an improved version of previous weapons systems and you are wrong to assert as much. They fundamentally change conflict dyads and have profound systemic and strategic implications. [/quote]

Where did I say nuclear weapons are an improved version of a previous weapons system? This should be interesting.[/quote]

usmccds423 wrote:

"Tools of war have changed and new tactics have been developed, but the essence of war is basically unchanged. "

It’s implied. Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the calculus of war. They aren’t merely an evolution of conventional munitions. They fundamentally changed international relations and strategy.
[/quote]

Oh oh, it’s implied… get the fuck out of here. [/quote]

So much vitriol. I seem to have struck a nerve. [/quote]
Douche bags often do.

[quote]
Do you not consider nuclear weapons to be fundamentally different from conventional explosive munitions? [/quote]

Yes, they are different. They have only been used 2 times in 70 years.

[quote]
Do they not convey unparalleled and profound stategic effects? [/quote]
They do.

[quote]
Your initial post seems to indicate that you do not. [/quote]

If you don’t understand a posts should you:

A) Just say the poster is wrong, or
B) Ask for clarification.

Literally 8+ pages of discussing this very thing…

Doesn’t matter if they could cause an extinction event. Read the 2nd as written.Read the history. We The People are tasked with changing what does not work through the process laid out by the founders. We are not tasked with playing word games.

214

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Militiamen could be supplied from an armory. Guerrillas get by on less. It’s called asymmetric warfare for a reason. Counterinsurgency doctrine calls for 20-25 counterinsugents for every 1,000 residents. Given the size of the US and its population of almost 320 million, that’s 6,400,000 troops. China’s army is 1,250,000 strong. They’d be in for a rough go even if one ignores the stopping power of water and the unrivaled US military.

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/09winter/goode.pdf

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Mearsheimer2001.pdf
[/quote]

That’s great and all, but the 2nd isn’t dealing with a right to access an armory. Its deals with the right of the people to keep the arms. Not sarcastic, by the way. Appreciate the links you bring. I try to make time to read one or two when I can.[/quote]

I get that. I’d be fine with potential militiamen maintaining assault rifles if the US took the Swiss approach. American males would undergo training administered by the US Army and would remain part of the militia in a reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). When their period of service has ended, militiamen would have the choice of keeping their personal weapon. Heavier weapon systems would be accessed at
military facilities in times of national emergency.[/quote]

I think this would be fine too. I don’t think, however, the 2nd Amendment should be retooled to mean that this was the “original intent” nor should any retooling occur that restricts existing gun rights to those who don’t participate in this program.
[/quote]

I’m surprised. I do not agree. I think it would be a bad idea to force males that want to be armed to undergo army training and then serve some quazi militia reserve duty for 12 years. The enormous cost of such a program is one thing. The central government training the state militia’s is another thing entirely. Bad idea, imo. Circumvents the entire counterbalancing purpose of the militia. [/quote]

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have power

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Section 10, Clause 3: Compact Clause

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Militia Act of 1792

“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, … every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.”

What more is needed outside the National Guard and State Defense Forces?[/quote]

"…reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…"Â

Something to counterbalance state forces and the national guard as well as traditional armed forces specifically as a check “necessary to the security of a free state”.

215

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Nuclear weapons are literally referred to as nuclear arms.[/quote]

One could make the same argument for chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Does this mean Joe Schmoe should be able to manufacture and maintain them?[/quote]

Yes. Read. The. Thread.

216

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, again, it isn’t infringement because it is not only not his property[/quote]

The Second Amendment doesn’t read, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed on people’s own property.” It reads, “shall not be infringed.”

[quote]
it is the property of others as a whole.[/quote]

This property is one on which the Bill of Rights legally obtains, and these “others as a whole” are citizens, qua their elected and appointed representatives (the state), who are literally the subject (the ones who “shall not”) of the Bill of Rights.

[quote]
It is not his house to set the rules.[/quote]

No. It is a public house, on which rules are set by the subjects of the phrase “shall not.”

[quote]
He may continue to carry his nuclear device off the property.[/quote]

No – the fringe absolutist theory of the Second Amendment is unambiguous (i.e., reductive, simplistic): “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Shall - not - be - infringed. And by whom shall this right not be infringed? By government, its appointees, electives, and representatives – Congress, at first, and then, by way of incorporation, governments in toto. Your “it’s our house” theory is nonsense (or bullpucky, if you prefer, for which word I thank you). The court is public property, kept and controlled in accordance with the directives of public representatives, agents, appointees – the precise place on which the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the precise group who shall not do the infringing.

217

Smh, I still don’t understand how you can basically ignore the phrase “necessary to the security of a free state”. Maybe you aren’t ignoring it, but that is what it seems like to me?

I also think there is a difference between “keeping” and “bearing” as it related to what is “necessary to a free state”. TB and I touched on this early on, but sort of dropped it. I don’t believe It is necessary to bear arms in a court room where your brother is being sentenced to a crime after being afforded due process in order to fulfill the phrase “necessary to the security of a free state”.

218

[quote]Bismark wrote:
So a private American citizen has a constitutional right to produce and maintain chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons? To what end? Is his doing so necessary to the security of a free State?
[/quote]

If the American Patriot had to rebel against the full force of the U.S. military what arms would be “necessary to the security of a free state”?

219

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But, again, it isn’t infringement because it is not only not his property[/quote]

The Second Amendment doesn’t read, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed on people’s own property.” It reads, “shall not be infringed.”

[quote]
it is the property of others as a whole.[/quote]

This property is one on which the Bill of Rights legally obtains, and these “others as a whole” are citizens, qua their elected and appointed representatives (the state), who are literally the subject (the ones who “shall not”) of the Bill of Rights.

[quote]
It is not his house to set the rules.[/quote]

No. It is a public house, on which rules are set by the subjects of the phrase “shall not.”

[quote]
He may continue to carry his nuclear device off the property.[/quote]

No – the fringe absolutist theory of the Second Amendment is unambiguous (i.e., reductive, simplistic): “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Shall - not - be - infringed. And by whom shall this right not be infringed? By government, its appointees, electives, and representatives – Congress, at first, and then, by way of incorporation, governments in toto. Your “it’s our house” theory is nonsense (or bullpucky, if you prefer, for which word I thank you). The court is public property, kept and controlled in accordance with the directives of public representatives, agents, appointees – the precise place on which the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the precise group who shall not do the infringing.[/quote]

  1. You forget that property owners have the right to set rules and bar people from their property if those rules aren’t met. It’s no different with a business or courthouse. If I tell you you must refrain from talking upon entering my property you’re free to move on and say to heck with me. Same with the court. Unless of course it’s your trial.

  2. Glad to see you point out exactly what the 2nd DOES say. In trying to use the text as it actually reads to persuade me with scary situations you ended up pointing out what it says, not what you wish it says. Wildly creative interpretations set aside, I am then correct. You just pointed out why the federal government has no business infringing upon the right to keep arms by regurgitating the plain language of the text back at me. Consequently, unmasking the creative reading of the text as nothing more than having a political goal in mind that you’re darned if you won’t get to.

I’ll be out for a while, busy day ahead. Take care.

220

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Smh, I still don’t understand how you can basically ignore the phrase “necessary to the security of a free state”. Maybe you aren’t ignoring it, but that is what it seems like to me?[/quote]

As I said a while back, that is the prefatory clause. The operative clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The meaning of these fourteen words, in the English language, in this order, from an absolutist textualist perspective (as you and Sloth have adopted), is clear and exact. Even if the former clause can give us information about the Founders’ frame of mind, it does not operate directly, syntactically, on the latter. The text could read “blue monkeys being predisposed to heroin addiction, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”…and the explicit directive – right people keep bear arms not infringed – would remain the very same.

If you deny this, and can show that you have good reason to deny it, this conversation will change drastically and not in a way that benefits your argument. Which is exactly why Scalia et al. distanced the clauses from each other.

[quote]
I also think there is a difference between “keeping” and “bearing” as it related to what is “necessary to a free state”. TB and I touched on this early on, but sort of dropped it. I don’t believe It is necessary to bear arms in a court room where your brother is being sentenced to a crime after being afforded due process in order to fulfill the phrase “necessary to the security of a free state”. [/quote]

Whether you believe it necessary or not, your absolutist reading of the (imperative) directive created by the operative clause leaves no room for you to “think there is a difference between ‘keeping’ and ‘bearing’” – neither is afforded any greater or less protection from infringement, and neither is made contingent upon your understanding of what is “necessary.” They are, simply, not to be infringed. This is the price of the framework within which you read the Constitution.