Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Have you read DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.Actually no, it doesn't.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.Actually no, it doesn't.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Actually no, it doesn't.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.Actually no, it doesn't.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
You just keep doubling down on your stupid assertion. The 2nd Amendment is written in English so I have to assume English is a 2nd language for you.
Actually no, it doesn't.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.Actually no, it doesn't.
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
There's no point in having a right to carry arms around, it serves no purpose that would have got it into the Bill of Rights.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Have you read DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Do you understand that the Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment, not the Federalist Papers or other primary source documents.
Clearly you're the one who needs to do some research.
It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.It's hard to believe people are still stuck on the militia idiocy.
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Haha. Oh, I know a lot about the Second Amendment. I've done my research.
I'll tell you what will happen. I'll make my argument. I'll present the evidence. Then people like you will start ignoring the evidence and then providing irrelevant nonsense, or trying to twist things so badly it looks like a car crash.
Do you want me to begin?
So the assertion here is that the Second Amendment protects and individual to carry a gun.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
In the House they discussed a part of the Second Amendment that did not eventually remain.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Now, the rights protected in the 2A are the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.
The argument is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it DOES mean carry.
Firstly this is a ridiculous assertion.
"stool" can mean a wooden backless seat, or it can mean feces.
"The doctor asked for a stool sample" "The doctor sat on the stool".
Okay, I'm going to say that because "stool" can mean "feces" it MUST mean feces.
So, "The doctor sat on the stool" must mean the doctor sat on the feces because it CAN mean he sat on the feces.
Sounds ridiculous right?
It gets even more ridiculous when you find out there are various meanings for "bear" as a verb. If it had to mean all of them, like give birth, then you'd get rather confused.
So, in the House they discussed whether to insert a clause that would allow people who were religiously scrupulous to not "bear arms".
Now, if this were "carry arms", then there's an assumption that individuals would be forced to "bear arms", therefore carry arms around.
I've never found one single thing suggesting that the people of that age would try and compel individuals to carry guns around with them.
Mr Gerry said: "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."
Later he said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
Wait, what. He's talking about "bear arms" and he's just used it synonymously with "militia duty". Not carry arms around, but "militia duty."
There doesn't seem to be any way of misinterpreting what Mr Gerry said.
The original clause talks about "religious scruples" and so too does the last quoted part of the passage.
"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.""
Ah, Mr Jackson wanted the "bear arms" changed to "render military service." Not only this, but they ACTUALLY did this.
June 8th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
August 17th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
August 24th 1789 the clause read:
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So clearly they thought the two similar, if not the same.
Then you have the Supreme Court
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Also, the NRA has supported carry and conceal permits. If carrying were protected by the Constitution, then the NRA would have to oppose something with prevents people from being able to carry out the supposed "right to carry guns around with them".
WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO "BEAR ARMS"
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*
Excerpt:
II THE RIGHT TO "BEAR" ARMS
Did the framers intend the second amendment to encompass a right to carry guns for self-protection? Professor Lawrence Cress, who speaks for himself when he claims that "we know little about the Second Amendment's reception in the States," has recently argued that the Founding Fathers would have been shocked by the idea that citizens could bear firearms for selfdefense.' 0 Professor Kates bases his similar argument that there is no right to bear arms outside of militia service on an unpublished thesis of a law student.'' Yet Cress and Kates are well aware 12 that the first state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." 13
LINK
It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.It's hard to believe that someone will reply to a post without knowing what the fuck they're talking about....
But happens all the time, doesn't it? And you've just added to the huge pile of shitty posts.
Though, here's the difference between you and me, I can back my argument up with lots of evidence, you can't.
Oh, well.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Haha. Oh, I know a lot about the Second Amendment. I've done my research.
I'll tell you what will happen. I'll make my argument. I'll present the evidence. Then people like you will start ignoring the evidence and then providing irrelevant nonsense, or trying to twist things so badly it looks like a car crash.
Do you want me to begin?
So the assertion here is that the Second Amendment protects and individual to carry a gun.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
In the House they discussed a part of the Second Amendment that did not eventually remain.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Now, the rights protected in the 2A are the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.
The argument is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it DOES mean carry.
Firstly this is a ridiculous assertion.
"stool" can mean a wooden backless seat, or it can mean feces.
"The doctor asked for a stool sample" "The doctor sat on the stool".
Okay, I'm going to say that because "stool" can mean "feces" it MUST mean feces.
So, "The doctor sat on the stool" must mean the doctor sat on the feces because it CAN mean he sat on the feces.
Sounds ridiculous right?
It gets even more ridiculous when you find out there are various meanings for "bear" as a verb. If it had to mean all of them, like give birth, then you'd get rather confused.
So, in the House they discussed whether to insert a clause that would allow people who were religiously scrupulous to not "bear arms".
Now, if this were "carry arms", then there's an assumption that individuals would be forced to "bear arms", therefore carry arms around.
I've never found one single thing suggesting that the people of that age would try and compel individuals to carry guns around with them.
Mr Gerry said: "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."
Later he said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
Wait, what. He's talking about "bear arms" and he's just used it synonymously with "militia duty". Not carry arms around, but "militia duty."
There doesn't seem to be any way of misinterpreting what Mr Gerry said.
The original clause talks about "religious scruples" and so too does the last quoted part of the passage.
"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.""
Ah, Mr Jackson wanted the "bear arms" changed to "render military service." Not only this, but they ACTUALLY did this.
June 8th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
August 17th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
August 24th 1789 the clause read:
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So clearly they thought the two similar, if not the same.
Then you have the Supreme Court
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Also, the NRA has supported carry and conceal permits. If carrying were protected by the Constitution, then the NRA would have to oppose something with prevents people from being able to carry out the supposed "right to carry guns around with them".
Meanwhile you didn't show what the SPONSORS of the Second Amendment thinks about it at all.
What did Madison or Jefferson, or Jay say about it?
Snicker..........................
WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO "BEAR ARMS"
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*
Excerpt:
II THE RIGHT TO "BEAR" ARMS
Did the framers intend the second amendment to encompass a right to carry guns for self-protection? Professor Lawrence Cress, who speaks for himself when he claims that "we know little about the Second Amendment's reception in the States," has recently argued that the Founding Fathers would have been shocked by the idea that citizens could bear firearms for selfdefense.' 0 Professor Kates bases his similar argument that there is no right to bear arms outside of militia service on an unpublished thesis of a law student.'' Yet Cress and Kates are well aware 12 that the first state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." 13
LINK
Problem is, first you talk about the author of the Federalist Papers, then you quote someone talking about the "framers".
The framers were a bunch of people with differing ideas.
There's no evidence at all that the SECOND AMENDMENT protects any right to self defense. There's evidence the right to self defense exists, it's just nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Basically, the logic that it does have something to do with it is
A) the Second Amendment says "arms"
B) You can use arms to defend yourself.
That's it. That's the logic.
So, I could say that the Third Amendment says "soldier", therefore I have a right to be a soldier.
The Fourth Amendment says "Houses", therefore I have a right to a house.
WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO "BEAR ARMS"
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*
Excerpt:
II THE RIGHT TO "BEAR" ARMS
Did the framers intend the second amendment to encompass a right to carry guns for self-protection? Professor Lawrence Cress, who speaks for himself when he claims that "we know little about the Second Amendment's reception in the States," has recently argued that the Founding Fathers would have been shocked by the idea that citizens could bear firearms for selfdefense.' 0 Professor Kates bases his similar argument that there is no right to bear arms outside of militia service on an unpublished thesis of a law student.'' Yet Cress and Kates are well aware 12 that the first state Declaration of Rights to use the term "bear arms" was that of Pennsylvania in 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." 13
LINK
Problem is, first you talk about the author of the Federalist Papers, then you quote someone talking about the "framers".
The framers were a bunch of people with differing ideas.
There's no evidence at all that the SECOND AMENDMENT protects any right to self defense. There's evidence the right to self defense exists, it's just nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Basically, the logic that it does have something to do with it is
A) the Second Amendment says "arms"
B) You can use arms to defend yourself.
That's it. That's the logic.
So, I could say that the Third Amendment says "soldier", therefore I have a right to be a soldier.
The Fourth Amendment says "Houses", therefore I have a right to a house.
Still you don't pay attention to the SPONSORS of the Second Amendment and those who were supporters of it.
That is why you stumble around so much with bogus evasions.
Yep I'm amazed that lefty doesn't understand what a militia is, or was. I guess history and civics aren't important to the ignorant.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Haha. Oh, I know a lot about the Second Amendment. I've done my research.
I'll tell you what will happen. I'll make my argument. I'll present the evidence. Then people like you will start ignoring the evidence and then providing irrelevant nonsense, or trying to twist things so badly it looks like a car crash.
Do you want me to begin?
So the assertion here is that the Second Amendment protects and individual to carry a gun.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
In the House they discussed a part of the Second Amendment that did not eventually remain.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Now, the rights protected in the 2A are the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.
The argument is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it DOES mean carry.
Firstly this is a ridiculous assertion.
"stool" can mean a wooden backless seat, or it can mean feces.
"The doctor asked for a stool sample" "The doctor sat on the stool".
Okay, I'm going to say that because "stool" can mean "feces" it MUST mean feces.
So, "The doctor sat on the stool" must mean the doctor sat on the feces because it CAN mean he sat on the feces.
Sounds ridiculous right?
It gets even more ridiculous when you find out there are various meanings for "bear" as a verb. If it had to mean all of them, like give birth, then you'd get rather confused.
So, in the House they discussed whether to insert a clause that would allow people who were religiously scrupulous to not "bear arms".
Now, if this were "carry arms", then there's an assumption that individuals would be forced to "bear arms", therefore carry arms around.
I've never found one single thing suggesting that the people of that age would try and compel individuals to carry guns around with them.
Mr Gerry said: "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."
Later he said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
Wait, what. He's talking about "bear arms" and he's just used it synonymously with "militia duty". Not carry arms around, but "militia duty."
There doesn't seem to be any way of misinterpreting what Mr Gerry said.
The original clause talks about "religious scruples" and so too does the last quoted part of the passage.
"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.""
Ah, Mr Jackson wanted the "bear arms" changed to "render military service." Not only this, but they ACTUALLY did this.
June 8th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
August 17th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
August 24th 1789 the clause read:
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So clearly they thought the two similar, if not the same.
Then you have the Supreme Court
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Also, the NRA has supported carry and conceal permits. If carrying were protected by the Constitution, then the NRA would have to oppose something with prevents people from being able to carry out the supposed "right to carry guns around with them".
Meanwhile you didn't show what the SPONSORS of the Second Amendment thinks about it at all.
What did Madison or Jefferson, or Jay say about it?
Snicker..........................
You see, I wrote what would happen right at the top, and it happened. You ignored EVERYTHING I SAID.
But you're welcome to provide quotes from both of these.
Actually I understand perfectly.
The reality is you're making massive assumptions based on nothing. And you keep hammering something when you have no idea what you're hammering.
You've decided you know what I know, and you're arguing that. It's rather common for people to do this, and it's ridiculous. Can you not see that you have no idea what my position is? You just assume you know it.
Have you read what the Co-sponsors of the second amendment said about it?
Have you read what the Federalist papers have to say about the second amendment?
Have you learned what the meaning of the word Militia meant in the 1700's?
You have some research to do.......................
Haha. Oh, I know a lot about the Second Amendment. I've done my research.
I'll tell you what will happen. I'll make my argument. I'll present the evidence. Then people like you will start ignoring the evidence and then providing irrelevant nonsense, or trying to twist things so badly it looks like a car crash.
Do you want me to begin?
So the assertion here is that the Second Amendment protects and individual to carry a gun.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
In the House they discussed a part of the Second Amendment that did not eventually remain.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Now, the rights protected in the 2A are the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.
The argument is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it DOES mean carry.
Firstly this is a ridiculous assertion.
"stool" can mean a wooden backless seat, or it can mean feces.
"The doctor asked for a stool sample" "The doctor sat on the stool".
Okay, I'm going to say that because "stool" can mean "feces" it MUST mean feces.
So, "The doctor sat on the stool" must mean the doctor sat on the feces because it CAN mean he sat on the feces.
Sounds ridiculous right?
It gets even more ridiculous when you find out there are various meanings for "bear" as a verb. If it had to mean all of them, like give birth, then you'd get rather confused.
So, in the House they discussed whether to insert a clause that would allow people who were religiously scrupulous to not "bear arms".
Now, if this were "carry arms", then there's an assumption that individuals would be forced to "bear arms", therefore carry arms around.
I've never found one single thing suggesting that the people of that age would try and compel individuals to carry guns around with them.
Mr Gerry said: "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."
Later he said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
Wait, what. He's talking about "bear arms" and he's just used it synonymously with "militia duty". Not carry arms around, but "militia duty."
There doesn't seem to be any way of misinterpreting what Mr Gerry said.
The original clause talks about "religious scruples" and so too does the last quoted part of the passage.
"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.""
Ah, Mr Jackson wanted the "bear arms" changed to "render military service." Not only this, but they ACTUALLY did this.
June 8th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
August 17th 1789 the clause read:
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
August 24th 1789 the clause read:
"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So clearly they thought the two similar, if not the same.
Then you have the Supreme Court
ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Also, the NRA has supported carry and conceal permits. If carrying were protected by the Constitution, then the NRA would have to oppose something with prevents people from being able to carry out the supposed "right to carry guns around with them".
Meanwhile you didn't show what the SPONSORS of the Second Amendment thinks about it at all.
What did Madison or Jefferson, or Jay say about it?
Snicker..........................
You see, I wrote what would happen right at the top, and it happened. You ignored EVERYTHING I SAID.
But you're welcome to provide quotes from both of these.
From here is a sampling from the founding fathers pens
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Co- Sponsor of the Second Amendment:
George Mason Gun Quotes
“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
-George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12 1776
Noah Webster Gun Quotes
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
James Madison Gun Quotes
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
on and on it goes.
