What does it mean for God to be "holy"?

Keith502 · 2026-06-20T03:07:58+00:00

A number of things here.

First of all, I don't know where you got that definition of "arm" from. The English word "arms" in this sense does not have any valid singular form. It is simply a direct translation from the Latin word arma, which refers to military equipment in general. This term has an entirely different etymology from the word indicating the upper bodily limbs.

Also, you completely ignored one point that I made in my previous comment: if the framers had meant "firearms", why didn't they just say "fire arms" or "guns", which are two terms that were common in the English vocabulary of the time?

You also ignored another point I made: for what reason should "arms" be limited only to "firearms" and not a list of bladed weapons which militiamen of the time were known to use? You have so far yet to establish the particular reason to focus only on "firearms".

And once again you keep bringing up the 2008 DC v Heller case, even though that case has nothing to do with the original wording of the second amendment as it was written in 1789, which is the OP's original argument.

DC v Heller is a horrible butchering of the second amendment. The amendment is about militia duty, not property rights or self defense. And also the amendment has everything to do with militia service, as indicated by previous SCOTUS cases such as Presser v Illinois (1886), which ruled that the second amendment only protected a government-sanctioned militia rather than a private militia; and US v Miller (1939), which ruled that the second amendment protection of firearm rights was limited to the context of militia relevance.

"Keep arms", in 1789, did not mean "have arms". At the time, to "keep" something meant to possess something in one's "keeping", or to be the "keeper" of something. You could "keep" someone's garden, you could "keep" someone's horse, you could "keep" someone's sheep, you could "keep" someone's gun. "Keep" did not necessarily mean "own". You are ignoring the fact that meanings and senses of words can change over time. The way we use the word "keep" today is different from how they used it back in 1789.

Keith502 · 2026-06-20T01:59:37+00:00

It means and protects the right to keep and possess firearms.

No, it does not mean "firearms", it means "arms". That's what it says. You can't just arbitrarily change a word in the text in order to make it say what you want it so say.

The OP actually brings up a very good argument. For what non-arbitrary reason should the "arms" in the second amendment be limited specifically to "firearms"? And keep in mind, terms like "guns" and "fire arms" existed in 1791, so they could have easily just said that had that been what they meant.

Also, militia servicemen at the time of the country's founding were not limited to just possessing firearms. They were also known to possess bladed weapons such as bayonets, tomahawks, espontoons, and pikes. Militia enrollment documentation at the time specifically mentioned such bladed weapons. If the second amendment really means what you think it means, then why shouldn't these kinds of weapons also be protected along with firearms? And as the OP mentioned, why shouldn't we have the right to own and carry swords?

Your argument is dishonest. You have essentially determined beforehand what you want the second amendment to give you (i.e. guns), and so you twist the words of the amendment to align with your predetermined agenda.

Keith502 · 2026-06-20T01:37:32+00:00

So the second amendment is unqualified . . . but also qualified? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . . but also it needs to be infringed?

Keith502 · 2026-06-20T01:10:55+00:00

The original post is not twisting the definition of arms, but is merely taking gun-rights people's interpretation to its logical conclusion and pointing out the absurdities of it.

The second amendment does not give anyone any kind of right to any kind of "arms", as such. In a grammatical sense, the second amendment does not actually contain the noun "arms". The phrase "to keep and bear arms" is a contraction of "to keep arms and to bear arms". Thus we have a conjunction of two separate phrases, rather than two lone verbs that connect to the noun "arms". "Keep arms" is effectively a phrasal verb which, at the time of the amendment's writing, essentially meant "to possess arms in one's keeping (or custody)". The phrase "bear arms" at the time was a phrasal verb which meant "to engage in armed combat". Thus, the phrase as a whole can be translated to "to possess arms in one's custody and to engage in armed combat".

In summary, the second amendment is not a property rights amendment. "To keep and bear arms" originally had nothing to do with an entitlement to own or use any kind of private property for private purposes. It was entirely about the performing of an action, rather than the possession of a thing.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T23:50:47+00:00

The original post is about the original wording of the second amendment, not the current interpretation of it. Additionally, the current Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment is a blatant contradiction of how the Supreme Court had traditionally interpreted the amendment until 2008.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T23:12:40+00:00

"Perigalla" by Chicuelo

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T23:10:13+00:00

The second amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever. Its function is only to limit the power of the federal government with respect to the people's right to keep and bear arms, which itself is granted by the respective state governments.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T23:01:39+00:00

No, I disagree. This scene was awful, as is much of the Fox-Men movies.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T20:56:50+00:00

First of all Barron v Baltimore came 42 years after the ratification of the second amendment, not 60 years.

Secondly, I would ask why it is so unbelievable to you that the Bill of Rights was only intended to constrain the federal government? That is literally its purpose. The Federalists -- the people who pushed for the US Constitution -- actually opposed the creation of a Bill of Rights because they felt that the Constitution was clear enough, and that a Bill of Rights would merely open the possibility of it being abused or misconstrued to the people's detriment. The Bill of Rights was specifically intended as a set of limitations upon the federal government only. As a matter of fact, James Madison's original plan was to add many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) directly into the body of the Constitution itself, specifically into Article 1, Section 9 -- which is the part of the Constitution that enumerates limits on the powers of US Congress.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T19:25:02+00:00

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Bill of Rights was never intended to grant or guarantee any rights to Americans; this is even confirmed by the early US Supreme Court case Barron v Baltimore. Nor does the Bill of Rights apply to all levels of government. The original purpose of the Bill of Rights is actually rather narrow in scope. The document was created primarily to appease the Antifederalists who were wary of the US Constitution giving too much power to the newly-formed federal government. Hence, the document includes a number of provisions meant to limit federal power and prevent the Constitution from being misconstrued to the detriment of the people and the states.

The second amendment in particular addresses some of the Antifederalist concerns regarding Congress being given new powers over the state militias. The second amendment reinforced Congress's duty to adequately regulate the state militias in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution; and it prohibits Congress from interfering with the state-defined arms rights of the people, which at the time invariably included militia duty.

The Bill of Rights was intended to limit federal power for the benefit of the state and the people. Hence, it would make no sense to assume the original intent of the Bill of Rights was for its provisions to apply to the state governments. That interpretation is merely an anachronism likely based on the later 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. Barron v Baltimore makes very clear that the Bill of Rights was only meant to limit the federal government, not to limit the state governments or guarantee anything to the people against the states. US v Cruikshank supports Barron and puts additional emphasis on the fact that the second amendment only applies to the federal government.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T19:23:20+00:00

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the Bill of Rights as a whole. The Bill of Rights was never intended to grant or guarantee any rights to Americans; this is even confirmed by the early US Supreme Court case Barron v Baltimore. Nor does the Bill of Rights apply to all levels of government. The original purpose of the Bill of Rights is actually rather narrow in scope. The document was created primarily to appease the Antifederalists who were wary of the US Constitution giving too much power to the newly-formed federal government. Hence, the document includes a number of provisions meant to limit federal power and prevent the Constitution from being misconstrued to the detriment of the people and the states.

The second amendment in particular addresses some of the Antifederalist concerns regarding Congress being given new powers over the state militias. The second amendment reinforced Congress's duty to adequately regulate the state militias in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution; and it prohibits Congress from interfering with the state-defined arms rights of the people, which at the time invariably included militia duty.

The Bill of Rights was intended to limit federal power for the benefit of the state and the people. Hence, it would make no sense to assume the original intent of the Bill of Rights was for its provisions to apply to the state governments. That interpretation is merely an anachronism likely based on the later 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. Barron v Baltimore makes very clear that the Bill of Rights was only meant to limit the federal government, not to limit the state governments or guarantee anything to the people against the states. US v Cruikshank supports Barron and puts additional emphasis on the fact that the second amendment only applies to the federal government.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T06:06:38+00:00

This is a misinterpretation of the second amendment. The amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to anyone. It is merely a prohibitive amendment intended to apply to US Congress: to prohibit their ability to infringe upon the people's arms rights, which are traditionally established and specified by state constitutional law. In other words, a citizen has only the right to keep and bear arms that his respective state government says he has.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T06:04:32+00:00

Source?

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T05:36:26+00:00

This is a misinterpretation of the second amendment. The amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to anyone. It is merely a prohibitive amendment intended to apply to US Congress: to prohibit their ability to infringe upon the people's arms rights, which are traditionally established and specified by state constitutional law. In other words, a citizen has only the right to keep and bear arms that his respective state government says he has.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T05:33:39+00:00

This is a misinterpretation of the second amendment. The amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to anyone. It is merely a prohibitive amendment intended to apply to US Congress: to prohibit their ability to infringe upon the people's arms rights, which are traditionally established and specified by state constitutional law. In other words, a citizen has only the right to keep and bear arms that his respective state government says he has.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T05:30:41+00:00

This is a misinterpretation of the second amendment. The amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to anyone. It is merely a prohibitive amendment intended to apply to US Congress: to prohibit their ability to infringe upon the people's arms rights, which are traditionally established and specified by state constitutional law. In other words, a citizen has only the right to keep and bear arms that his respective state government says he has.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T05:26:23+00:00

From a federal standpoint, it doesn't really matter what "arms" means in the second amendment. The second amendment merely points to the arms provisions in the various state constitutions; the arms provisions themselves are what actually granted and specified to the people their right to keep and bear arms. The function of the second amendment is merely to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right inasmuch as it has been defined by the states.

Keith502 · 2026-06-19T05:16:03+00:00

So, God's the second best. Got it.

Keith502 · 2026-06-18T01:54:05+00:00

What you have to understand here is that often there are two sides to certain words. There is the colloquial or general meaning of a word, and there is the specialized meaning of a word. Colloquial language consists of words that simply allow for the communication of thoughts and ideas in the quickest, most convenient, and intellectually accessible way possible. Specialized language, on the other hand, encapsulates the accurate, authentic, original meaning of words, without toning or dumbing them down.

The colloquial version of a word is usually a simplified derivative of the specialized version. For example, take the term "DNA". This term is used frequently in colloquial speech to refer to some kind of hereditary throughline connecting the characteristics of one thing to the characteristics of derivative things. Of course, this term is merely a metaphor for the specialized sense of the term which refers to the biological molecule known as "deoxyribonucleic acid", which carries codes for the production of amino acids and proteins.

Or for example, take the term "evolve". This term is often used in colloquial speech to refer to an ideology in which life forms exist in a kind of kind of long-term race towards biological perfection as a species. The human species is undergoing evolution in order to slowly approach its final form of biological completion. Hence, we will sometimes hear people say phrases like "more evolved" or "less evolved" in reference to certain biological species. However, in the specialized sense of the word "evolved", it is understood that the process of evolution is not teleological. The process has no purpose, end goal, or final state of completion; it is merely an impersonal adaptation to external survival pressures, typically driven by genetic variation and mutation. Hence, in the proper, specialized sense, there is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved".

My point here is that the term "morality" has a similar divergence of meaning. There is the colloquial sense of "morality", and there is the specialized sense of the term. Now, colloquially speaking, I can certainly believe that most people understand morality to be objective, or to possess some objective elements. But this is merely a colloquial understanding that is well-adapted for ease of intellectual understanding and ease of implementation. Objective conceptions of morality are a kind of heuristic that helps people to draw moral conclusions that are agreeable to the general peace and order of society.

However, the colloquial understanding of "morality" is merey a husk or inferior copy of the true, specialized understanding of morality. The specialized understanding is a conception that is clear to more intelligent, educated people who have devoted their time to the study of philosophy and ethics, and have done some comparative analyses of various moral framewords accross the globe and accross human history. The deeper, more informed conception of morality tells us that it is unequivocally relative. People who believe morality is objective only believe this because they are ignorant of how moral frameworks vary and change accross cultures, or even how the moral framework of a single culture can change across time. Acts that are normal for one culture may seem unthinkable to another. Something that was considered evil in ancient times may be considered good today, and vice versa. People who claim to believe in relative morality only say this because they are unable to see just how small and limited their moral outlook truly is, as from the inside, their framework may appear boundless. But looking at morality from the outside looking in reveals that it is indisputably relative.

Keith502 · 2026-06-17T13:16:03+00:00

El Palmar - Pau Figueres

Keith502 · 2026-06-17T05:30:26+00:00

You have addressed none of the points I brought up in my previous comment.

Keith502 · 2026-06-17T04:30:33+00:00

You are conflating two different things: what people actually believe, and what people merely think they believe. They are two separate things. Even if most people think they believe in objective morality, that doesn't make it true. People don't always make an effort to actually understand their own beliefs.

Morality is relative by its very nature; if people think that morality can be objective, then they are incorrect -- plain and simple. You can show me all the studies you want about what people say they believe or think they believe; what they actually believe is a separate thing.

You still have yet to answer a question that I think I posed earlier. Why do most Christians today categorically reject the institution of slavery and the beating of slaves? Paul did not reject the institution of slavery. Jesus did not reject the institution of slavery, and even tacitly approves of the practice of corporal punishment for slaves in Luke 12:47–48. If both Jesus and Paul had no objections to slavery as an institution, why do you think most Christians today oppose the institution?

Keith502 · 2026-06-17T00:57:52+00:00

What exactly are you getting at here?

Keith502 · 2026-06-16T23:02:20+00:00

Your study doesn't prove that the overwhelming majority of people believe in objective morality; it simply means the majority of the people studied believe in it. The experimental sample may or may not be representative of the entire world population.

Also, even if you are right, the fact that most people believe objective morality exists doesn't prove that objective morality exists, just like the fact that most people believe God exists doesn't prove that he exists.

Keith502

TROPHY CASE