Mr. zukiphile and I are engaging in a game called sophistry. That is, trying to out word one another.
You speak only for yourself on this point. I am addressing you in language that is ordinary for me. If you need greater explanation, ask for it. Accusing someone who is providing answers you request of sophistry is inappropriate.
Which means it is substantially true.
Correction from me. Your statement is not true.
Which indicates that they aren't crew served, as is the case with an artillery piece.
So you include them as being protected by the 2A as well as hand grenades, claymore mines, grenade launchers? If not what is your constituional basis?
Before restating your prior questions yet again, you should acknowledge the validity of the distinction between crew served weapons and individual arms.
You have asserted substantial error over the last week in arguing your conclusion. When your error, such as your assertion that libel is a government infringement of speech, is pointed out, you simply proceed to your next error. That is not courteous, conversational or gentlemanly.
I am not applying criteria; I am applying context to resolve the ambiguity you raised. See the difference?
No, you are using historical context (ie the militia of 1790) as criteria to justify civilians possessing the same weaponry legally and without restriction as the military uses.
Now I don’t think you know what criteria are, since your use in that sentence is problemmatic.
You raised the question of which arms are protected by the amendment. I have provided you a standard that is drawn from Miller.
AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.
Rather than propose a standard, you would limit a constitutionally explicit liberty to items in common
civilian use, or not too dangerous, or for self defense, or at least not anything that might give you the willies or contradict a public policy as stated in a congressional act.
That is not a standard. It is not a protection of any kind.
Except that I never said that. If you argue matters no one raised, either you didn't understand that the point wasn't raised, or you are consciously seeking the refuge of the strawman. Which is it?
Neither, ...
Be frank. You attributed an argument to me that I’ve never made. Why?
This isn't a matter of intelligence; it is a matter of fidelity to text, and accepted principles of construction. It is not a legitimate principle of construction to change the meaning of a law because you don't like guns or a citizen militia gives you the willies.
You are claiming that your view maintains fidelity to the text but others see it differently.
The
process by which I arrive at my view maintains fidelity to the text. That someone disagrees is not an argument against the process or resulting view.
Therefore your accepted principles of construction are accepted only by those with your bias.
That is false. The principles of construction I explained to you are ordinary and widely accepted rules of statutory construction amongst attorneys.
That you assert otherwise indicates a significant gap in your understanding of construction of documents.
I think the 2A is not so clear as you, I guess that's why the SCOTUS agreed to judge it.
They aren’t judging the amendment; they are deciding whether the DC law violates it.
It is not legitimate to change or create a meaning of the COTUS because you like guns or the idea of the unorganized militia.
If I had done that, you would have nearly made a point. That you would argue that prohibiting an infringement of RTKB changes or creates a meaning of a part of the COTUS that prohibits infringement of the RTKB is unserious.
By the way, as an aside can you tell me when the last time was a state raised it's unorganized militia to active service?
The great bulk of US military forces have been drawn from the militia. It has never been otherwise.
I am not sure what you mean by
raised the militia. The militia exists as a matter of US Code. Its members are drafted and are free to enlist in the armed services.
Thinking it is a bad idea to restrict the Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms is not a rational constitutional theory for concluding that the 2d Am does not restrict the Congress from infringing that right.
Let me help you with this some more. The 2d Amendment to the COTUS is subject to the interpretation of the SCOTUS. The 2d Amendment is subject to limitations and regulations that the SCOTUS deem constitutional. Therefore, laws enacted that limit or regulate the keeping and bearing of arms that are deemed constitutional by the SCOTUS are constitutional.
All true and all completely non-responsive.
You suggest a historical context and I suggest a modern one.
That is not correct. You have shown no context in which assault rifles are not arms. Statements like the one above are of the type that make me question whether you understand the argument you make.
You cannot show your context to be superior to mine (or Mr. Gura).
I have done.
how about just some plain english? it is ok to talk big, but the net result is the same, we win or lose on what the court dicides.
