Gun-control groups fear top activist was NRA spy

Facts according to you and you alone, the experts disagree with you.



Stox you are so far off base with your drivel there is no need to truly even respond to your crap.

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd, I have researched it before, very deeply I might add. Had you brought an actual argument I might try to debate you on it, as it stands you are doing nothing more than making shit up in your own little fantasy world to try to dispute what the EXPERTS who actually know of what they speak state the 2nd is about.

How are you going to butcher the 2nd next time around to make it sound like your argument actually has some substance?

 

all you are doing grim is pointing to other people who agree with you as if that is some kind of argument against what i am saying. Do you not see how that is facile and not an argument against anything? This seems to be all you ever do, You seem to feel entitled to waltz in to a thread, proclaim that you are right, offer no argument against what people are saying and expect them to abandon their case in light of your appearance.

If you still think the right of individuals to own guns is protected by the second could you at least explain why the framers decided to include the bit about "well regulated militia".

 

Sure I do Stox..

Perhaps the method you attempted here makes me laugh at you more than anything, totally butchering the 2nd, not including the full text and rearranging the words to fit your agenda. Had you not went this route, had you actually come with a decent argument instead of twists and dodges perhaps I'd feel the need to actually debate you, when you however lie over and over again for all to see what is the point in even wasting time?

'well regulated militia' no matter the meaning of it, the point is

One can argue all they want about what a well regulated militia entails, the point is the framers directly put that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' it doesn't matter if it was for the purpose of purple elephants, the rights are given to the people! The 'militia' truly serves no purpose other than a reason to give these rights, the rights are not of the militia, they are to the PEOPLE!

 

My agenda is reality. I'm not particularly against people owning guns, What i am against is a collective misinterpretation of an old text for the justification of it. At no other time has the term "bear arms" been used in any other context than a military one. This is the point, The right granted to the people is the right to be a part of an armed militia, Not the right to personal gun ownership.

So you can't explain why the part about a "well regulated militia" was included and simply render it as having "no purpose". it demonstrates exactly how little the words mean to you. You defend the bits you like as being unquestionable and ignore anything which seems to imply something different.

The right was granted to people, But the right granted was the right to join an armed militia.

 

Ahh yes your 'reality' in which you change the text of something to your agenda, that is real 'reality'

'bear arms' and the 2nd amendment is to keep/own guns for the 'reason' being the militia. The right of ownership of the 2nd however is granted to the citizens, no law shall be made to destroy/erode this right which grandfathers down the right for anyone to own guns for whatever reason they feel fit.

Did I say that I can not explain it? The reality is you have yet to make an actual argument that needs to get any further into this topic other than what I have as you have done nothing more than twist the context of the 2nd amendment to your own beliefs, changing the words to your own false reality.

My point was simple I do not, nor does anyone need to explain the 'militia' as the right of gun ownership goes to the people. Do I have an idea of what the militia means? Yes I do, I however do not see it as even being relative to this discussion as the rights are given to the people, not to the state or the militia.

The state BTW would not need a right to 'bear arms' further eroding your simply dreadful argument.

Totally false, the right to gun ownership was given to the people. for the reason of being able to arm a militia.

Why on earth would a state need to give itself the right to have people come into a state run militia? They wouldn't, truly making your argument so unappetizing and out of touch with reality, excuse me while I throw up a little bit

Umm you are totally incorrect on this.
I have watched multiple programs on the subject, read many books, done lots of online research 'bear arms' has been used other than 'military' even still, even if you used this rationale, the right to 'bear arms' can be used for the citizens who are 'keep'ing their arms to come forward in defense of the nation, or state to 'bear' their personal 'arms' that they are allowed to keep. I know you think the founding fathers actually put 'keep' as into clean guns 'you honestly said that, still scratching my head there' why on earth would they put such a trivial bit of information into something that is usually quite broad and nowhere near this specific. But sure, they made certain to give the people the right to clean guns while in the militia, sure they did.

 

lol you have got to be kidding me....


Tip: Don't continue an argument after you've been proven wrong. You will talk yourself into ridiculousness.

 

Sorry, aren't you the person who said the text which makes it clear the right to bear arms was in a military context "serves no purpose"?

This gun thing makes you americans jump around like crazed fanatics. Heaven forid soemone should question your right to play toy soldiers.

 

Those who've grown up around guns usually have a great respect for guns and understand their purpose and safety. It's becoming apparent stOx has never had the pleasure of that experience.

 

Nah, I only got my RAF marksman certificate shooting an L98 (non-automatic SA80) when i was 14. Something like that pales in comparison to the extensive experience you lot have had shooting tin cans off a wrecked car with a .22

having a "gun culture" does not automatically make americans gun aware, safe or respectful of them.... Being 14 and getting tested does.

Not that any of that would have any effect on whether the constitution supports an individuals right to own a gun or not. Being for or against something doesn't effect whether a legal document protects your right to do it. Or are you saying your claims that the constitution supports an individuals right to own a gun stems from your desire for it to be true and not because of the facts?

 

The question is more like is your delusion from socialist rhetoric or just genetic?

 

Nope, nice twist. I stated the reason does not matter, as it could be for pink elephants, the powers are granted to the people. The powers can not be infringed for any reason, making the 'reason' they are given pretty much meaningless as it grandfathers arms for any legal reason. Of course it serves a purpose, not in this debate however

I state 'legal' as of course murder is not legal, the gun ownership however would be legal and you'd simply be prosecuted for the murder in most all cases.

BTW I don't own a single gun, so nice try

 

You should practice asking questions then. My position is one based in an understanding of 18th century English, The words they used and the context in which they used them.

If you have an OED handy look up the terms "bear arms". It's defined as; to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. Which fits in perfectly with the condition of being in a well regulated militia.

 

There is no 'condition' of being apart of a 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd amendment.

Bear Arms was also used in others areas, not exclusively for military service. As stated, even if you were right it wouldn't change things, the citizens could 'bear' their personal 'arms' in defense of the nation/state when such a time was needed.

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights

It is disputed back and forth, however by any logic all it takes is a few instances of personal or non military definition of 'bear arms' to be proven to defeat your point, therefore welcome to point defeat.

 

look it up. The OED, You know, The book that contains what English words mean, Says the term "bear arms" is, and was, Used specifically in a military context.

In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia
From: The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent

Wouldn't it be strange if the only time they used it in a different context was in the piece of text which you assume supports the individuals right to firearms. That would certainly be convenient, for you, And a very confusing choice by them.

I sometimes think most americans would have a better grasp of what the constitution says if it was written in thick red crayon and was accompanied with pictures. All you have done GRIM is buy in to the NRA's bastardisation of the constitution which they now use, Out of context, As a marketing tool to support something it was never intended to support.

You are a sell out grim. You are pissing all over something which you would have us believe you think is important just because you desperately need to find something which supports your preconceived opinions, Opinions which are nothing more than the parroted rhetoric formulated by a lobby group as part of a campaign slogan.

 

Stox you have got to be kidding me. I am not an NRA member or follower. The OED also does not create the end all term, I am far from a sell out, sorry I wont let the likes of you butcher the 2nd amendment and twist and lie to create a fictitious meaning of the 2nd amendment.

It is not only in the 'one text' you claim, it is used more than that but now since your point was defeated that it was 'never' used besides military service, instead of admitting you were OWNED and wrong you go on rambling more false statements.

Yep you know more about what the founding fathers in the US intended. How about the states?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Go color with some crayons, you have not an ounce of a clue here and to be blunt your childish antics are really quite boring.

---
and no it wouldn't be 'strange' as it was used in more than just the 2nd amendment. Do you get off on lying? Do you honestly believe people will take you seriously when caught in lie after lie like you have been in this thread?

Yet again, a partial quote, there is much more info than this among the web showing that the phrase was used in non military writings, do some research would you?

 

The OED doesn't create a term, it documents what that term means. and the term "bear arms" can only and does only refer to military service. Sorry the world isn't a mirror of what you imagine in your head, But that's tough. words have meanings and the constitution contains words. You are a classic example of someone looking for evidence to support their conclusion.

Ok good, let's see it....

Right, ok... So where does that use the term "bear arms" in a non-military context? Oh that's right, IT DOESN'T.

 

Yet in the context of writings it has had different meanings, which historians have pointed out. You are a classic case of someone sticking their head up their ass, being blinded by facts.

Wow nice job of again selectively butchering a quote to your own agenda.

Are you prepared to stop lying? If not you are soon to meet my ignore button, shared with the likes of Gtech, another who can not get his head into reality out from his ass.

---

Nice butchering of this as well..

Obviously it is stating that historians have found in English Language works written before 1820 the usage of 'bear arms' that has nothing to do with military service. It goes on to speak of the common law being in agreement and gives an example of why the common law is in agreement not an example of 'bear arms' in a non military usage.

Wow talk about a twister, are you descended from tornadoes?

 

How exactly was the quote butchered? it is the two sections of the same paragraph.

This is the quote in it's entirety;
Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that...have nothing to do with military service...[and] The common law was in agreement. Edward Christian’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries that appeared in the 1790’s described the rights of Englishmen (which every American colonist had been promised) in these terms 'everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game.' This right was separate from militia duties."[6]

it starts off by claiming that the term "bear arms" was used in a non-military context and then continues to give an example of a non-military context, Which unfortunately for you, Doesn't contain the term "bear arms". perhaps you should actually read things before copy and pasting them wholesale.

 

As it's easy to see STOX is goes to talking about 'common law' agreement and not an example of 'bear arms' it states historians have found a number of non military uses.

Still bypassing the statement that does show bear arms in a non military sense, during the time and in the area of where the Constitution was created I see

Perhaps you should quit while you are WAY behind.


--
http://centanium.com/2008/07/heller-commentary-post-2-keep-and-bear.html

But sure it was 'never' used in a non military sense, uh huh. Got any magical creatures, perhaps fairies you want us to believe in as well?

 

Right, so what the framers done, According to Grim, the NRA shill, Is use a phrase when writing the most important document in american history which everyone knew the meaning of and use it in a context rarely used and a context of which examples of could only be found by those looking for it (those like grim who look for evidence after forming their conclusions). And at no point, he would have us believe, In the many drafts and redrafts did anyone say "if we are granting people the right to own guns would it be best to not use a phrase which has heavy military connotations?".

The framers weren't idiots grim. They spent a lot of time wording this thing, If "bear arms" was meant to mean "own guns" they would have just said that and not used a phrase which, even at the time, Would have been assumed to mean military service.