Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
an argument about what is stupid and what isn't stupid is pointless when it concerns you. It's something I'm not going to get in to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
from websters.com
To hold up; support.
To carry from one place to another; transport.
To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
To have as a quality; exhibit: “A thousand different shapes it bears” (Abraham Cowley).
To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: “boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past” (F. Scott Fitzgerald).
I do not see 'rightfully have', but I do see an instance of 'carry', as in from one place to another: transport. You can 'bear' the title to your car, but you cannot 'bear' your car as it would be impossible to carry, much like a tank or an ICBM.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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."
|
whats asinine is to foolishly interpret 'arms' in the second amendment as 'appendage' when the convention arguments specifically state arms as firearms. Whats also equally asinine is not using the correct definition of 'bear' and trying to substitute it with one of your own that was incorrect to begin with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
Yes, you can bear an RPG launcher and you can bear a machine gun. You CANNOT bear a tank unless its small enough to strap across your back and you can aim it in your hands and shoot it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
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.
|
I've defined the second amendment as the founders did, unlike you who has tried to define the second as some sort of states rights or an outdated concept that should be scrapped because we're so far advanced now that the founders couldn't have imagined things like nuclear weapons.
The founders didn't care about nuclear weapons or tanks. They only cared to protect a pre-existing right to the people as protection from tyranny.
Read the founders statements sometime if you're not afraid to be proven wrong.