Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
This is incorrect. The definition of 'bear' is to carry. The US supreme court has used this definition in many of its dicta when referring to the second amendment.
|
If you want to get that absurdly technical, then the 2nd says "keep AND bear arms" which means you have the right to a weapon only as long as you carry it on you 100% of the time. Clearly that's stupid.
Plus you're using ONE definition of "bear" when in fact there's another definition that says "to rightfully have." I.e. by that definition I bear my car. It's an antequated term, but then the constitution is over 200 years old.
Insisting that we use only one definition of "bear" is silly, and could be countered with the equally absurd argument that the definition of "arms" that I want everyone to use is the appendages that attach your hands to your body. By that definition no weapon at all is guaranteed under the 2nd. But then that argument is just as asinine as the argument redefining "bear."
Then your argument falls apart when you consider the bans on machine guns. You can certainly "bear" a machine gun. You can "bear" an RPG launcher. And I think an argument can be made that you can in fact bear larger weaponry as well.
So far in this thread you've tried to redefine the 2nd amendment to suit your purposes twice. You've tried to tell us that the 2nd only guarantees arms that you can physically carry (wrong) and you've tried to tell us that the 2nd only guarantees your right to bear FIREarms, even though the word "firearms" does not appear anywhere within the 2nd.
It would be very easy to win arguments if we could redefine terms at will and then require everyone to accept our definitions.