capego
Member
- Thread starter
- #141
The idea that "bear arms" = "render military service" is absurd. Let's explore the source that you've misinterpreted:
Document 6, House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
"""
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
....
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.... This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward.
"""
The constructors were so intent on not violating peoples' rights that the amendment originally had "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms", but, Gerry, being rightfully paranoid about governments' misuse, reinterpretation, and misconstruction of law thought that phrase provided the opportunity for government to "invade the rights and liberties of the people". You are literally arguing the inverse of what Gerry said: "Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to [***]raise an army[***] upon their ruins". And, what better way to destroy the militia than to, as he put it, declare all people religiously disposed not to bear arms and then deprive them of that right, and thus make them incapable of forming a militia.
And, in case you still deny the obvious, let's continue from the source:
"""
Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
"""
You are arguing that Jackson really meant
"No one, religiously scrupulous of military service, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
but actually said, just, I guess, to confuse rational poeple
"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.".
What an insane perverse interpretation you have.
"""
Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
"""
Stone makes it clear there are at least two things being considered - "bearing arms" and something else, presumably "serving in a militia" - making it, once again, clear the two things are different.
This presents the question to me. How could you misconstrue a person who is paranoid of governments' almost impossible interpretation of "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" to mean that those who wrote the 2nd amendment (Elbridge Gerry did not) actually intended a different meaning of "bear arms" (despite having the ability to write the meaning clearly)? And, I venture it is one or a mix of 1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
Absurd? Except that I've shown this is what the Founding Father said. So, you're calling the Founding Fathers absurd.
I can't believe you've just gone and posted half the damn document. What's the point. I provided the source.
Oh, oh, oh, now it's a DIFFERENT MEANING of "bear arms". Are you kidding me?
Wow, then you attack me.
See, I wrote in my first post that people would do everything they could to avoid seeing what is really there.
Attacking me is the obvious one, it's happened so many times. I've never had someone tell me that in:
""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
That "bear arms" in the first clause means one thing and "bear arms" in the second clause means something completely different. I'd love to see a bunch of Constitutional scholars read that. They wouldn't stop laughing for ages.
Basically you're making shit up, and your attack on me is just typical bullshit from people who know nothing.
Not a single refutation by logic of any of my specific points. Please go away, you are apparently being unconstructive.
What logic?
1. you are a troll 2. you are heavily indoctrinated 3. you have a mental illness.
Logic?
No. Unless you can get through a post without insulting, I'm not going debate with you.
I have a choice, I make that choice all the time, and I put people on ignore quite a bit because I don't come on here to exchange insults like a child.
My god, somehow you went to the end of the post and skipped all the content just to read what you think is an insult? I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong, but, as it stands, are are only proving my venturing about what you are.
Liberals are full of trolls that will purposefully misconstrue meaning to argue incessantly without responding to reason. You are fitting that description presently.
Yes, if you insult, I will skip everything you said.
Learn.
Then there is no reason for you to be here presently, so go away.