quote:


Now, if we had a dictionary from the initial libraries of the founding fathers,

quote:

Conveniently, as it happens, allowing citizens to be armed vastly improves the chances of criminal violence meeting with "consequences" in an immediate and effective way.

quote:

I reference the multiplicity of definitions around arms because it is the most accessible one to the debate; my point is that virtually all nouns / verbs have a multiplicity of meanings throughout various contexts, social eras, and the like.

quote:


Your arguments are logically inconsistent and do not conform with the documents you reference. I'm done addressing your posts, as the evidence leads me to believe you are uninterested in having an informed debate, but there is my last rebuttal for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

By this logic, the Constitution itself has no meaning whatsoever outside of whatever linguistic fiats this or that generation sees fit to apply.  By this logic, we may, or may not, have the right to free speech, bear arms, peacably assemble, worship, et cetera.  By this logic the Constitution is merely a mirror of the current consensus on civil liberties and social values.

quote:

This logic, however, is refuted not only by the entirety of Supreme Court history, but also the Federalist Papers and innumerable other writings on the Constitution and its meaning.  The Constitution is not relative, but definitive.  Being definitive, it must in some ways become an absolute.  It is the absolute arbiter of law and justice within the United States.

quote:

Words may have multiple meanings, but in any given context a word has only one meaning.  In the context of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the word "arms" means "weapons"--in particular firearms but also all weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Guns are inanimate objects.

quote:

I believe you are missing my point; I am not saying words have no meaning or infinite plasticity in all contexts! I am saying interpretation is complicated, and that absolute certainty is sometimes not available through certain statements, though some degree of relative certainty is.

quote:


For instance, if I say:

"The cat was black."

Then it is fairly clear I am not referring to a dog, or a parachute, or a fork being black. But what precisely I meant by cat is up for debate; cat is a word that lacks specificity. Did I mean a house cat? Panther? Bobcat? Was I using slang and referring to one of my friends? And likewise, in that case, did I mean black as the racial group, or did I mean the literal color?

Obviously, there are not infinite meanings here, but likewise, there is not one absolute, clearly defined meaning with no uncertainty whatsoever unless you further question me about this. If that is all I wrote, and then died and vanished, how would you interpret that?

This is the question I ask.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
However, this example is absurd, because it does not fit the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment.  Given the reference to militias, the definition of "arms" that I cite is the only definition that fits.  The text loses coherency when you apply any other definition.  Plasticity decreases to zero.

Thus, we do know, with certainty, what the founding fathers meant, and what they meant was that private ownership of weapons is an absolute right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Once more before i ABSOLUTLY leave this thread BULLSHIT

Try not to get moderated before you hit one-hundred posts. It's generally bad form.  

quote:

if I presented you with a dictionary definition referring to arms as very definitely (or almost definitely) firearms, would this be equally valid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Once more before i ABSOLUTLY leave this thread BULLSHIT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

The fire shouting argument is akin to the laws against brandishing a firearm
They are not against the act of speach or the act of bearing arms but speak to the fact that your rights end when they butt up against the rights of the next person to not be injured.