Quote:
Yes, it does. However there have been judges, like in the Robertson v. Baldwin case, that like you and Galileo like to read things into the 2A that are not there.


What exactly do i like to read into that is not there? The fact that the founding fathers used the term "bear arms" as a synonym of being in the militia? The fact that carry and conceal is not protected by the 2A in present day america, or that judges said it was not more than 100 years ago? The fact that every version of what became the 2A spoke about the militia, that they were afraid that the religiously scrupulous clause would prevent individuals being in the militia and this would mean no militia.

WHat exactly do you read into this???? How do you wipe away all this evidence and what do you replace it with?

Quote:
Yes yes, I've read your ridicules theory that in the 2A "own" is an individual right but "bear" only applies to a militia.


Youŕe going to have to show me where i said this, because i have never heard me saying this one. The individual has the "right" to keep arms, the individual has the "right" to be in the militia. Both are individual, both are protected for collective reasons.

Quote:
I've never commented on it because it makes no sense what so ever and I was hoping you would come to that conclusion on your own. No luck so far.


Problem is, it makes far too much sense. It is also backed up by the founding fathers.
YOu want to protect the militia. How do you do it? YOu protect the personnel and the arms, so you can have armed soldiers.
Protect the arms, by the "right" to keep arms, protect the personnel with the "right" to bear arms.
Imagine that bad government comes along, they want away with the militia. They can either choose to ban guns, or ban individual being able to be in the militia. Either way, the militia would be ineffective, the reason for the 2A, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state" no militia, no security.

Quote:
Actually I do. What I don't seem to have is protection from missinterpretations of the BoR. On second thought I do, because I have the right to keep and bear arms I will be protecting myself.


The you are claiming that you can carry your gun wherever you like as long as it does not infringe upon the "rights" of others?? Then how come this is not the way it works in the US right now???

Quote:
My point exactly. Black people have the same human rights as anyone else regardless of what the gov't says. Rights they and others have been willing to fight and die for over time. What the Gov't had was a "theory" that said Blacks were inferior. What people have (people of any race) are "actual" human rights, not an abstract anything.


No it is not your point exactly, you have failed to understand. I write "black" and talk about slavery, and you go off somewhere else. What i said was, the law at the time regarded blacks as inferior, so under the law blacks were inferior. But this is an abstract idea, humans believe it, they carry it out. Doesn mean it is true, does it?

Quote:
It makes no difference if you "accept" my theory or not. First off, its not a theory its fact.


Prove it!!!

Quote:
Human rights are not some abstract idea they are one of the things that seperate us from the animals you seem to hold as equal.


Prove it!!!

YOu are saying all this stuff. I can come on here and say, the moon is made of cheese, fact, it is what distinguishes it from a ball of rock in space. Doesn mean it is true, you use no evidence to back your claim up, you have not proven that we are different to animals, you have not proven "rights" exist, you have not proven that animals don have "rights". If fact, it is all just talk, no evidence whatsoever.
No you might be into believing what you are told to believe like a good little boy, but i am not!!!

Quote:
- You claim rights do not exist yet several times you have said I have the right to own arms.


I am not suprised you cannot understand this. I claim "rights" don't exist. However i accept that there is a theory of "rights" and i accept that you believe it. I am communicating with you. If i say the "right" to keep arms, you know what it means, i also say "right" and not right for a reason.

Quote:
- You said in your previous post that its a fact that a Black person is just as much a human as anyone else, I agree, but if rights don't exist how is this possible? Are they only human because the Gov't says so?


But then you say that animals are not equal to humans. If "rights" exist, then surely all living creatures have "rights".
Also, your point here is weird. A person cannot be equal unless they have "rights". Maybe a person can be equal because they are a person just like anyone else.
I know black people who represented their country at the world student games and went to princeton university to study a masters, and i knew white people who were so damn stupid it was unbelieveable. But then the reverse is true, that is why people are equal, especially when talking about colour of skin, hair, eyes etc.
Your argument is akin to, because "rights" exist, "rights" exist, and as "rights" exist, this is proof that they exist. YOu start with a premise that could be wrong, you will never find the truth that way.

Quote:
- You claim there are no rights but that the 2A protects something. The only thing the 2A can protect is a right. You cannot protect a "thing" with words only actions, you can protect or infringe upon a right with words and/or actions.


Why can it not protect something other than a "right"??? MAybe it does not protect anything other than "individuals can keep and bear arms". That is something, it does not exist as a physical thing, but it is there.

Quote:
- You claim bearing arms connects only to the militia yet in another thread you recognise an unorganized militia. OK, fine, I'm in the unorganised militia 24/7 therefore I have the right to bear arms all day everyday.


YOu have half an argument there. You are in the unorganised militia, therefore you can keep arms even under this collective view. However that is not necessary as i have explained. The "right" to bear arms, means being controlled by state appointed officers. YOu cannot go around with your gun on a whim and kill people because you are in the militia. In a armed force, you obey orders from the top downwards.
There is a supreme court case about this, about parading in public with arms, and it is not protected unless it is official.

Quote:
Wrong, let me translate it back to what I actually said. I KNOW that the RKBA is important, I KNOW gov't has no place in taking my arms away, and I am willing to fight for my rights.


But you have not proven you even have "rights".

Quote:
No, "bear arms" means to carry them, hold them, have them on your person, etc.


Maybe it can mean that, but it does not in the 2A. In emerson they made a big booboo. They said when considering "the people" that it has to mean the same thing throughout the constitution. Yet when looking at the original version of what would become the 2A, and said "bear arms" here means one thing, and "bearing arms" there means something else. How is that possible???

Remember that the 2A has context. It does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and nothing more. Also the founders spoke about all of this, all of which you choose to ignore.

Quote:
If you have a jacket over your arms you are still bearing them.


But then this is the english language. I can speak of a stool.

Mary is sat on a stool. COntext, she is sat on a wooden seat.
A stool came out of mary's arse. Context, it ain a wooden seat.

"It is important for an individual to be able to defend himself from the attack of a criminal, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged."

Bear arms means what???
SOmething different to bear arms in the real 2A because of CONTEXT!!!!!

Quote:
The 2A puts no limit on how you bear them. Actually the 2A doesn't put any limits on individuals on bearing arms. The 2A only limits gov't.


Yeah, the 2A was designed as a check and balance against article 1 section 8 and the ability of the feds to disarm the militia. It is there to prevent the govt from destroying the militia, the last great check and balance. So, they prevented the govt stopping individuals joining up the militia.

Logical!