The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[JakeStarkey]

If you are an originalist in constitutional interpretation, you have to show where citizens have the right to such military weapons. You can't and you don't. Do you know what strict construction means?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you are an originalist in constitutional interpretation, you have to show where citizens have the right to such military weapons. You can't and you don't. Do you know what strict construction means?

I dd to Bear arms is a militay term and is talking about military grade weapons.

 

[idb]

They were privately owned by the carrier of the weapon, the government did not have any say as to what they were to do with them.

Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.

Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.

I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001


UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

I have...and it still says

Legislative drafters did sometimes use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed "bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Remembering that your cited document was an opinion, not having been tested in any court...on that basis I think that you are right, but, if the opinion in the document was held to be true then the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess firearms for private use.
It doesn't put controls on them, as you say, but neither does it grant any rights.

Again, I'm just referring to your document, not passing a personal opinion.

I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001


UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

I have...and it still says

Legislative drafters did sometimes use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed "bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons...

What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

 

[idb]

I suggest you go back to the OP
Summary of Emerson
Date: 10/19/2001


UNITED STATES v. EMERSON
U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit

I have...and it still says

Legislative drafters did sometimes use literal language to define specific legal responsibilities for use of weapons under the militia acts. But they employed "bear arms" only occasionally in a literal sense, and the linked words were never used to describe hunting or other non-military use of weapons...

What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have...and it still says

What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.

I also linked the finding or summary of the court. in that last post.

 

[peach174]

If you have the money you can own a tank

Private citizens with tanks

While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy

Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank

P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.

 

[peach174]

Here is a web site where you can buy military type rifles.
Yes citizens have the right to own military type weapons.

Military assault Rifles, sniper guns, firearms,weapons & more

You can even own cannons if you want.

 

[idb]

What is it that you refuse to comprehend?
The court noted:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."
Summary of U.S. v. Emerson

Historically understood, would be to keep and bear arms to bear arms being a military term.

I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.

I also linked the finding or summary of the court. in that last post.

That's right, and the court finding is indisputable, but nothing to do with the original premise of this thread.
Once again, I am merely pointing out that the conclusion of the document that you started this whole thread on weakens, rather than supports your original statement.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't refuse to comprehend anything.
I am reading the document that you linked to, and according to it 'to keep and bear arms' is a military term, yes.

I also linked the finding or summary of the court. in that last post.

That's right, and the court finding is indisputable, but nothing to do with the original premise of this thread.
Once again, I am merely pointing out that the conclusion of the document that you started this whole thread on weakens, rather than supports your original statement.

You woiuldn't know anything about Americans keep and bear private arms as historically understood in this country. It's the way they worded it historically understood in this country that you cannot get around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you have the money you can own a tank

Private citizens with tanks

While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy

Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank

P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.

Sorry, ma'am, I apologize for that. Tell me, peach, are those tanks fully functional as combat platforms as they are now constituted. I suspect not. Does the law permit them to be retrofitted.

I you can make such an argument with solid support I am going to have to some digging.

Great post, thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americans "historically" have not understood the 2nd in terms of possessing modern military weapons; no evidences support such a concept by a large majority of American citizens in modern times. The formation of the national guards, the reserves, etc., only further confuses. SCOTUS clearly opines that Americans can carry and bear arm but imparts no concept of military weapons platforms.

I am correct in assuming your philosophical premise is that an armed citizenry is necessary to avoid government suppression of civil liberties, thus citizens must be on a level playing field with the military? If that is so, I will merely point out that is not possible and will not happen. James Madison said it best that civic virtue is the best guarantor of American civil liberties.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Americans "historically" have not understood the 2nd in terms of possessing modern military weapons; no evidences support such a concept by a large majority of American citizens in modern times. The formation of the national guards, the reserves, etc., only further confuses. SCOTUS clearly opines that Americans can carry and bear arm but imparts no concept of military weapons platforms.

I am correct in assuming your philosophical premise is that an armed citizenry is necessary to avoid government suppression of civil liberties, thus citizens must be on a level playing field with the military? If that is so, I will merely point out that is not possible and will not happen. James Madison said it best that civic virtue is the best guarantor of American civil liberties.

Americans "historically" have not understood the 2nd in terms of possessing modern military weapons

Really you are to presumption, don't speak for people whom you have nothing in common with.

The formation of the national guards, the reserves, etc., only further confuses. SCOTUS clearly opines that Americans can carry and bear arm but imparts no concept of military weapons platforms.

They are not the militia, because they do not own those weapons they carry.

I am correct in assuming your philosophical premise is that an armed citizenry is necessary to avoid government suppression of civil liberties, thus citizens must be on a level playing field with the military?

There you have it jake you just identified the military as the government. The militia was to keep the government in check now they have an extended strong arm.

If that is so, I will merely point out that is not possible and will not happen.

Would you bet your life on uncertain times?

 

[LostAmerican]

If I read the 2nd Amendment correctly, it is not about having a gun to protect one's self, but about using it on invading border jumpers and protecting the country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no evidence to support your philosophy, bigreb, and you of all people, along with Gautama and gstarz, must never presume you speak for anything more than a minuscule minority of reactionary militia wacks. You don't have the evidence, only your philosophy. Thanks for the admission.

 

[idb]

They are not the militia, because they do not own those weapons they carry.

Well then, there's nothing more to be said.
You and the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives disagree.
If you won't accept their opinion you certainly won't accept anyone else's.

 

[peach174]

If you have the money you can own a tank

Private citizens with tanks

While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy

Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank

P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.

Sorry, ma'am, I apologize for that. Tell me, peach, are those tanks fully functional as combat platforms as they are now constituted. I suspect not. Does the law permit them to be retrofitted.

I you can make such an argument with solid support I am going to have to some digging.

Great post, thanks.

I accept your apology. No the Tanks have the breech removed, but a good machinist can make one, it's the ammunition that would be hard to get.
The point is that if your citizens can be armed and our government ever became a dictatorship or a despot came into power we have the right to overthrow that kind of government. I also think that our military would be one the side of the citizens if it ever happened.
This is what the 2nd amendment is about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have no evidence to support your philosophy, bigreb, and you of all people, along with Gautama and gstarz, must never presume you speak for anything more than a minuscule minority of reactionary militia wacks. You don't have the evidence, only your philosophy. Thanks for the admission.

Not once in this discussionj have you used a source, you have only given an opinion, You have been trumped by the judical system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you have the money you can own a tank

Private citizens with tanks

While tanks are intended strictly for military use, it has become somewhat of a status symbol for a private citizen to own their own tank. Below is a list of private citizens known to own a tank.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Chingy

Larry the Cable Guy's custom tank which he dubbed the "Hillbilly Death Dealer"
Snoop Dog
Bruce Valance
Larry the Cable Guy
Mr T
Fank the Tank

P. S. By the way Jake - I am a she not a he.

Sorry, ma'am, I apologize for that. Tell me, peach, are those tanks fully functional as combat platforms as they are now constituted. I suspect not. Does the law permit them to be retrofitted.

I you can make such an argument with solid support I am going to have to some digging.

Great post, thanks.

I accept your apology. No the Tanks have the breech removed, but a good machinist can make one, it's the ammunition that would be hard to get.
The point is that if your citizens can be armed and our government ever became a dictatorship or a despot came into power we have the right to overthrow that kind of government. I also think that our military would be one the side of the citizens if it ever happened.
This is what the 2nd amendment is about.

The civilians will have no impact worthy of decision making. The national guards, the reserves, and the active military will decide whether to obey tyrannical government. If such a government comes, let's hope the good guys in the NG, Reserves, and the active services will decide to stand up and hand out weapons.

But absolutely nothing supports the concept of you and me possessing heavy weapons platforms. The civilian "tanks" are not that today and are not legal for retrofitting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post #196 answers your pouting. You made the OP, your evidence (yet once again) contradicts your premise, thus no one has to provide counter evidence. After all this time you still don't get it. That's OK. We will continue to guide you.