Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

"Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Scout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Leif Rakur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > "Do you think "bear arms" means "carry arms" in this passage from the
> > > Journals of the Continental Congress?":
> >
> > Ok, then let's answer the question.
> >
> > Yes, they certainly must be large/strong enough to carry the arms they
would
> > bear, before they could do so.
>
> Leif speaking:  Do you really believe that "healthy, robust" youths of
> 15 through 17 years of age wouldn't be able to carry arms?

Some could, some may not be able to. That's why they had to show they could
do so.

>  What they
> weren't considered capable of doing was "bearing arms" (engaging in
> armed military service) until they were of "sufficient age."

Except that age has never been a limitation of militia service. Children,
the elderly, women and slaves have all served with distinction in the
militia.....

> > Further I note that nothing in this passage contests the documented fact
> > that one could bear arms for purposes other than rendering military
service.
>
> Leif continuing:  You might provide a few examples quoted from the
> 18th century where "bear arms" clearly has a literal meaning of "carry
> arms" without any added explanatory words to make the term literal.

Already provided. Why don't you deal with it?

> When used without such extra words, it  invariably had the figurative
> military  meaning ("render armed military service"), as in the
> Continental Congress example I provided earlier, and as in the Second
> Amendment.

Sorry, but unless something has a single meaning then you can't have the
"understanding" you assert.