Has America taken the good of the individual too far?

[Darkwind]

Sooo, after we tax guns out of existence we can tax homo marriages out of existence. Sounds like a plan...

The last time I checked - the founding father's guarenteed my right to bare arms, they didn't guarentee my right to a homo marriage.

Also we talk about whether Jesus was a Palestinian when you can tell me how Palestine got its name and who were the some of the kings of Palestine I know the answers - just want to see if you do)?

Are you in a "militia"...?

Give it a read.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[Darkwind]

Sooo, after we tax guns out of existence we can tax homo marriages out of existence. Sounds like a plan...

The last time I checked - the founding father's guarenteed my right to bare arms, they didn't guarentee my right to a homo marriage.

Also we talk about whether Jesus was a Palestinian when you can tell me how Palestine got its name and who were the some of the kings of Palestine I know the answers - just want to see if you do)?

Are you in a "militia"...?

Since I know you are a closed minded individual, I'll post the pertinant parts that relate to your image.

THE MILITIA PREFACE

It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . "
Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say:

1. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people's right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.
3. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the right of the people to keep and bears arms is protected only to the extent that such a right fosters a well regulated militia or the security of a free state.

As these observations suggest, the grammar of the Second Amendment emphasizes the indefiniteness of the relation between the introductory participial phrase and the main clause. If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause. The usual function of absolute phrases is to convey information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause, such as its cause. For example: "The teacher being ill, class was cancelled."

The importance of this can be illustrated with a simple example. Suppose the Constitution provided: A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.13
​

This provision, which is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment, obviously means the following: because a well educated electorate is necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. The sentence does not say, imply, or even suggest that only registered voters have a right to books. Nor does the sentence say, imply, or even suggest that the right to books may be exercised only by state employees. Nor does the lack of identity between the electorate and the people create some kind of grammatical or linguistic tension within the sentence. It is perfectly reasonable for a constitution to give everyone a right to books as a means of fostering a well educated electorate. The goal might or might not be reached, and it could have been pursued by numerous other means. The creation of a general individual right, moreover, would certainly have other effects besides its impact on the electorate's educational level. And lots of legitimate questions could be raised about the scope of the right to books. But none of this offers the slightest reason to be mystified by the basic meaning of the sentence.

The Second Amendment is no different. Modern readers may have difficulty in seeing how a general right of individuals to keep and bear arms could contribute to a well regulated militia and to the security of a free state, and we shall explore that question in more detail below. But the text of the Second Amendment offers not the slightest warrant for presupposing that the answer to the question is that its framers were semi-literate fools who meant to say something like "The states shall have the right to maintain independent military forces for use against the federal government."

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8]Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By the title of this post one might think I am a liberal, but I am actually very conservative. While I believe in the rugged individualism of America's history, I believe in the last century we have taken individualism to a level even the founders would probably not agree with.

The main facts I use to site my case are from a recent article in the Weekly Standard called "Single Nation". It stated that 67% of males in America between the ages of 20 and 34 have never been married yet. It also stated that 57% of females in that same age group have never been married. We are also having less children even when we do get married.

We have become a selfish society, afraid of commitment, afraid of loosing ourselves in marriage or having children. Marriage and Family are the foundation of any successful society, when those things crumble, the nation will soon follow.

We are more concerned with with being able to own the big house, two new cars and take luxerious vacations than getting married, settling down and having children. Even when we have children we only want one or two - so we "can afford" to take care of them - that is code for "spoil them".

I believe in individualism where it supports,builds and encourages the growth of healthy marriages and families. I believe the focus of society needs to be on the good the family, as opposed the good of the nation, or the good the individual. Without strong families, the nation perishes, and with that the freedom of the individual.

So what can we do to change this trend? I believe we need to strongly encourage marriage, in fact we need to reverse the marriage penalty and make it the "marriage advantage" in taxes. We need to make it very beneficial to be married and to have children. Child tax credits should be doubled or quadrupled.

Color me flabbergasted. How do you get from kids not growing up and accepting responsibility to too much good, whatever you think that is, for the individual?