@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:Wrong. This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons” is merely an assertion of opinion.
The concerns that the Anti-Federalists raised regarding the militia were that the government would neglect to arm the militia and neglect to train the militia.
This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home” is merely an assertion of opinion.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:"As well as the right to keep them at home," is also an assertion of opinion.
It is a fact that the Second Amendment says that people have the right to KEEP arms.
Yes. The fact that the Second Amendment says that people have the right to KEEP arms does not negate the fact that the statement, "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home,” is an assertion of opinion.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:Yes it is.
IF it happens that a factual claim of mine will turn out to be incorrect, that will not make it an opinion. Such an error would merely be an untrue claim.
True, but if a claim of yours is merely an opinion then any factualness within the claim would be irrelevant to the fact that the claim is merely an opinion.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:One thing is recorded history, another thing is your interpretation of it, and the conclusions you draw from your interpretation of it.
No interpretation is necessary. Recorded history is quite clear.
Wrong. Recorded history is constantly being reassessed, reevaluated and reinterpreted.
oralloy wrote:
We won't be able to have a productive discussion of my conclusions until we reach an understanding of what recorded history says. We'll get there.
The closest we'll get to a productive discussion of your conclusions is to acknowledge that your conclusions are opinions derived from what
you understand recorded history says.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:oralloy wrote:Recorded history shows that the Anti-Federalists proposed the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) to address fears that they had about the new government.
Recorded history also shows that the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was adopted by the federal government to address the fears that were raised by the Anti-Federalists.
Ok.
The concerns that the Anti-Federalists raised regarding the militia were that the government would neglect to arm the militia and neglect to train the militia.
Sure, among other things.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:That is merely your interpretation of what the Second Amendment says.
The Second Amendment directly says that the people have the right to KEEP arms.
Sure, but the claim that, "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home,” is merely an assertion of opinion.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:oralloy wrote:That is incorrect. Recorded history shows that what the Virginia Ratifying Convention was afraid of was that the federal government would abuse it's power by preventing the militia from having arms sufficient to carry out their duties.
No it's not. This is an assertion of opinion, as well.
Patrick Henry, at the Virginia Ratifying Convention wrote:Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States -- reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither -- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/
Ok. This, as well, does not negate the fact your claim that, "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home,” is merely an assertion of opinion.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:What I think it means is irrelevant to the fact that your statement that "that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons" is merely an assertion of what you think it means.
The fact that the Second Amendment says that the job of the militia is the security of the nation means the militia has the right to have weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion.
"The fact that the Second Amendment says that the job of the militia is the security of the nation", is one thing: a statement of fact; the claim that that, "means the militia has the right to have weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion," is another thing: an assetion of opinion based on interpratation of the statement of fact; and the conlusion that these support the claim that "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home," is yet another thing that is mere conjecture based on the first thing: the statement of fact, and the second thing: an assertion of opinion based on interpretation of the satement of fact.
oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:oralloy wrote:That is incorrect. Patrick Henry's speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention made it very clear that this was an issue of concern.
No it's not. This is merely an assertion of your interpretations of recorded history.
Patrick Henry, at the Virginia Ratifying Convention wrote:Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.
Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States -- reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither -- this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/
As stated earlier, this does not negate the fact your claim that, "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home,” is merely an assertion of opinion.
