TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Sorry, I'm failing to see your point here.
You asked:
Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald?
Clayton showed you that they didn't ignore this document at all, as it was referenced by the dissent.
Which implies that the Court's opinion ignored this document, which is the point I am making.
Disagree. It seems to me that they knew of it and simply rejected the reasoning of the minority in that case.
Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?
I must borrow from your post here: I'm failing to see your point. Are you trying to bash the "open carry" hardliners? The phrase "bear arms" in the Second Amendment seems to me to refer to using the weapons rather than merely carrying them. For example, "bring to bear" is defined as meaning, "To aim a weapon at a target." The document you posted seems to reinforce this, as the debate was largely centered around military/militia service exemption for religious conscientious objectors.
I'm not bashing anyone. The term "bear arms" seems to me to be using the weapons in the militia, rather than just using them in general. And this document seems to reinforce this I believe.
"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;"
This makes clear the meaning and intent. The militia was to be composed of the body of the people, or the entirety of the people of a state. The conversation in your link rails against standing armies--at one point they are named "the bane of liberty"--and proposes a state militia as a safeguard against a standing army. To ensure that a militia has readily-available recruits/volunteers, "the people" of a state are given the right to keep and bear arms. The language here makes it abundantly clear that:
A) The militia is composed of the people; and
B) The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to the militia or its specific members from among the body of the people.
All the more reason to see the Second Amendment repealed. Individuals have absolutely no legitimate reason to ever have their own weapons of any kind at all.
Even if this was true, a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would disarm our militias. Smooth move slick.