Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Thanks, this seems more on point.
Your quotes are interesting food for thought, would that they were linked for their context but I'm wondering about the Patrick Henry quote on the end -- ? Whence comes it?
They come from multiple sources, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Patric Henry, letters written by Thomas Jefferson, etc.
I have them (the quotes) all saved from years ago when I was researching this same question, most of which I typed in from reading the documents I had in my library.
Right but I'm wondering what the context is; what dialogue preceded this statement, i.e. what point was Patrick Henry countering with this?
(Actually context is always crucial in quotes; the editorial made that point.)
Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
It always amuses me that the left will hang its hat on the dependent clause about "a well regulated militia" while ignoring the independent clause that says "the right of the People".
Yes. Really.Really.
I cited my statement of fact; that you choose to act otherwise only serves to further prove your dishonesty.
Youdo not have to like the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, but, to remian intellectually honest, you must accept it.
Why do you refuse to accept said fact?
What you did was excise out the part of my post that shows you to be a liar.
Here it is, restored:
Really.
Then who in the wide wide world of sports posted this, under your name:
Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
You'll notice what you claimed to have not said was exactly what you DID say.
Meanwhile you've called me a liar based on your own inability to find even a single post of mine calling for "gun control". I challenged you and you failed.
What level of dishonesty does it take to lie and then call the other party the liar -- liar?
Really.... and how far is that?You.
Its not MY claim that The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Really.
Then who in the wide wide world of sports posted this, under your name:
Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Heller only applied to DC; see McDonald v. Chicago for the broader application. Still does not go as far as gun lovers believe however.
Indeed -- and it drives the anti-gun loons absolutely bonkers.Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
It always amuses me that the left will hang its hat on the dependent clause about "a well regulated militia" while ignoring the independent clause that says "the right of the People".
As the right of the People to keep and bear arms is the issue, it's an individual right, just as free speech and freedom of religion and the right to not testify against yourself are individual rights.
Pointing out the fact that libbies are emotional creatures isn't emotional. You live in denial. All your posts are the online equivalent of bouncing around with a pogo stick up your ass, you never have anything substantive to say but you think it's smart to simply deny and insult. It isn't working.You misspelled facts. Being a contentious asshole won't work.Irony above in red...
Sorry, don't know how it is on Planet Ice but here, emotional value judgments are not "facts". Nor is ipse dixit.
Repeating this error doesn't make it right.Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
It always amuses me that the left will hang its hat on the dependent clause about "a well regulated militia" while ignoring the independent clause that says "the right of the People".
Interesting idea - since that opening clause was considered a "prefatory" clause by SCOTUS in 2007; that is, a clause that simply sets up (acts as a preface to) the operative clause (see here).
However, that doesn't make much sense according to the rules of grammar, considering the placement of the comma. Now your position that it's a dependent clause makes more sense; it means that the operative clause ("the right of the people...") depends on the Militia clause. That is, the need for a militia makes what follows possible.
As a grammarian, I agree, I think you're right. "Prefatory" doesn't make much sense.
Pointing out the fact that libbies are emotional creatures isn't emotional. You live in denial. All your posts are the online equivalent of bouncing around with a pogo stick up your ass, you never have anything substantive to say but you think it's smart to simply deny and insult. It isn't working.You misspelled facts. Being a contentious asshole won't work.
Sorry, don't know how it is on Planet Ice but here, emotional value judgments are not "facts". Nor is ipse dixit.
Repeating this error doesn't make it right.It always amuses me that the left will hang its hat on the dependent clause about "a well regulated militia" while ignoring the independent clause that says "the right of the People".
Interesting idea - since that opening clause was considered a "prefatory" clause by SCOTUS in 2007; that is, a clause that simply sets up (acts as a preface to) the operative clause (see here).
However, that doesn't make much sense according to the rules of grammar, considering the placement of the comma. Now your position that it's a dependent clause makes more sense; it means that the operative clause ("the right of the people...") depends on the Militia clause. That is, the need for a militia makes what follows possible.
As a grammarian, I agree, I think you're right. "Prefatory" doesn't make much sense.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How could a militia have it's right to be armed infringed? That makes no sense. There's no such thing as an unarmed militia. Militia are not called 'the people'. A bozo on the internet isn't going to rewrite our rights no matter how often they bounce around.
Repeating this error doesn't make it right.Interesting idea - since that opening clause was considered a "prefatory" clause by SCOTUS in 2007; that is, a clause that simply sets up (acts as a preface to) the operative clause (see here).
However, that doesn't make much sense according to the rules of grammar, considering the placement of the comma. Now your position that it's a dependent clause makes more sense; it means that the operative clause ("the right of the people...") depends on the Militia clause. That is, the need for a militia makes what follows possible.
As a grammarian, I agree, I think you're right. "Prefatory" doesn't make much sense.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How could a militia have it's right to be armed infringed? That makes no sense. There's no such thing as an unarmed militia. Militia are not called 'the people'. A bozo on the internet isn't going to rewrite our rights no matter how often they bounce around.
That's not what the post says, is it? No wonder it makes no sense.
A "dependent clause" means it acts as the basis for the active clause; it provides a raison d'être. It qualifies the active clause; in this case, if a well regulated militia were NOT necessary to the security of a free state, then the active clause (the rest of the sentence) would have no reason to exist. It's conditional.
I'm just amused at the SCOTUS' use of "prefatory" here, a term that has no real meaning. Especially since none of the other amendments feel a need to present their basis or set conditions or preface themselves; they simply make absolute statements. Hunarcy here calls the same clause "dependent" rather than prefatory. I agree, grammatically it makes a lot more sense.
Where do you see emotion? Only an overly emotional creature sees emotion where there is none.Pointing out the fact that libbies are emotional creatures isn't emotional. You live in denial. All your posts are the online equivalent of bouncing around with a pogo stick up your ass, you never have anything substantive to say but you think it's smart to simply deny and insult. It isn't working.Sorry, don't know how it is on Planet Ice but here, emotional value judgments are not "facts". Nor is ipse dixit.
See what I mean? Apparently you can only post from emotion. Oh well.
Do you consider James Madison to be knowledgeable on the matter?Repeating this error doesn't make it right.Interesting idea - since that opening clause was considered a "prefatory" clause by SCOTUS in 2007; that is, a clause that simply sets up (acts as a preface to) the operative clause (see here).
However, that doesn't make much sense according to the rules of grammar, considering the placement of the comma. Now your position that it's a dependent clause makes more sense; it means that the operative clause ("the right of the people...") depends on the Militia clause. That is, the need for a militia makes what follows possible.
As a grammarian, I agree, I think you're right. "Prefatory" doesn't make much sense.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How could a militia have it's right to be armed infringed? That makes no sense. There's no such thing as an unarmed militia. Militia are not called 'the people'. A bozo on the internet isn't going to rewrite our rights no matter how often they bounce around.
That's not what the post says, is it? No wonder it makes no sense.
A "dependent clause" means it acts as the basis for the active clause; it provides a raison d'être. It qualifies the active clause; in this case, if a well regulated militia were NOT necessary to the security of a free state, then the active clause (the rest of the sentence) would have no reason to exist. It's conditional.
I'm just amused at the SCOTUS' use of "prefatory" here, a term that has no real meaning. Especially since none of the other amendments feel a need to present their basis or set conditions or preface themselves; they simply make absolute statements. Hunarcy here calls the same clause "dependent" rather than prefatory. I agree, grammatically it makes a lot more sense.
You should know by now that anti-gun loons simply refuse to believe that the 2nd protects an individual right not connected to the militia, regardless of the fact that it does.Repeating this error doesn't make it right.It always amuses me that the left will hang its hat on the dependent clause about "a well regulated militia" while ignoring the independent clause that says "the right of the People".
Interesting idea - since that opening clause was considered a "prefatory" clause by SCOTUS in 2007; that is, a clause that simply sets up (acts as a preface to) the operative clause (see here).
However, that doesn't make much sense according to the rules of grammar, considering the placement of the comma. Now your position that it's a dependent clause makes more sense; it means that the operative clause ("the right of the people...") depends on the Militia clause. That is, the need for a militia makes what follows possible.
As a grammarian, I agree, I think you're right. "Prefatory" doesn't make much sense.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How could a militia have it's right to be armed infringed? That makes no sense. There's no such thing as an unarmed militia. Militia are not called 'the people'. A bozo on the internet isn't going to rewrite our rights no matter how often they bounce around.
Where do you see emotion? Only an overly emotional creature sees emotion where there is none.Pointing out the fact that libbies are emotional creatures isn't emotional. You live in denial. All your posts are the online equivalent of bouncing around with a pogo stick up your ass, you never have anything substantive to say but you think it's smart to simply deny and insult. It isn't working.
See what I mean? Apparently you can only post from emotion. Oh well.
Yes, I was aware long ago. They are lied to by the activists and they repeat the lies. If it isn't addressed at all it grows and we've seen plenty of examples in plenty of ways. Lies repeated enough become the truth for many.You should know by now that anti-gun loons simply refuse to believe that the 2nd protects an individual right not connected to the militia, regardless of the fact that it does.Repeating this error doesn't make it right.Interesting idea - since that opening clause was considered a "prefatory" clause by SCOTUS in 2007; that is, a clause that simply sets up (acts as a preface to) the operative clause (see here).
However, that doesn't make much sense according to the rules of grammar, considering the placement of the comma. Now your position that it's a dependent clause makes more sense; it means that the operative clause ("the right of the people...") depends on the Militia clause. That is, the need for a militia makes what follows possible.
As a grammarian, I agree, I think you're right. "Prefatory" doesn't make much sense.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How could a militia have it's right to be armed infringed? That makes no sense. There's no such thing as an unarmed militia. Militia are not called 'the people'. A bozo on the internet isn't going to rewrite our rights no matter how often they bounce around.
As such, there's no sense in arguing with them.
