Like Load of the flies

[Crackerjack]

I don't believe the founders had any future insight into the types of firepower we see today.

What if they only meant muskets?

If they meant muskets, I believe they would have said muskets.

Admittedly the text is vague, but if I had to guess at the meaning, I'd be pretty confident that they would be okay with whatever level of armament a typical infantryman would have access to.

I don't think they were all that vague at all.

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.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That seems pretty clear to me.

I'm not opposed to common sense gun laws. I realize the members of the NRA on site will take exception to this and I understand some of their concerns, but I have no problem with requiring registration and licensing.

I do have a problem with people trying to take away the right to keep and bear "arms" as in weapons of most kinds. I do not believe that any citizen should be allowed to have any weapons of mass destruction of any kind. I believe there are good reasons for people wanting to own assault rifles and such.

I think the second amendment is damned clear. The people of the United States have the legal and Constitutional right to own weapons.

Immie

I was kind of trying to stave off the "does that mean we can all own nukes" argument, but your point is well taken.

 

[francoHFW]

Definitely now a LYING spoiled rich kid and W clone...

I know, cut taxes on the rich, destroy Medicare, raise military spending, and get that deficit (in 2036. How dumb can the dupes get? Seriously...

No civil unions, let Wall St. run wild, drill in national parks, destroy Medicaid, SS, health reform, attack Iran, bait Russia and China, support Arab dictators...brilliant, dupes...unbelievable.

 

[Liability]

Definitely now a LYING spoiled rich kid and W clone...

I know, cut taxes on the rich, destroy Medicare, raise military spending, and get that deficit (in 2036. How dumb can the dupes get? Seriously...

No civil unions, let Wall St. run wild, drill in national parks, destroy Medicaid, SS, health reform, attack Iran, bait Russia and China, support Arab dictators...brilliant, dupes...unbelievable.

WTF does any of that gibberish mean?

FrenchieTub wanted to say something, but those word things got the best of him.

As do small rodents.

 

[Synthaholic]

They went to great lengths debating and carefully crafting the wording of our founding document.

Admittedly the text is vague, but if I had to guess at the meaning, I'd be pretty confident that they would be okay with whatever level of armament a typical infantryman would have access to.

These two statements are in conflict. I doubt that they crafted careful wording in order to be vague.

 

[Liability]

They went to great lengths debating and carefully crafting the wording of our founding document.

Admittedly the text is vague, but if I had to guess at the meaning, I'd be pretty confident that they would be okay with whatever level of armament a typical infantryman would have access to.

These two statements are in conflict. I doubt that they crafted careful wording in order to be vague.

What we consider vague today wasn't necessarily vague when written.

 

[Skull Pilot]

why do you defend the assualt of a teenager and harp on the playground mistake Obama admitted to?

If no charges were filed then it was not an assault.

When I was in high school I and everyone I knew got into at least one fist fight and no assault charges were ever filed.

It was just dumb kids doing dumb things nothing more and nothing less than has been going on since there have been dumb kids.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't believe the founders had any future insight into the types of firepower we see today.

What if they only meant muskets?

If they meant muskets, I believe they would have said muskets.

Admittedly the text is vague, but if I had to guess at the meaning, I'd be pretty confident that they would be okay with whatever level of armament a typical infantryman would have access to.

I don't think they were all that vague at all.

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.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That seems pretty clear to me.

Sentence structure dictates that, removing the "being necessary to the security of a free state", the rest of the sentence should make sense. But:

A well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That reads badly.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

That reads well.

A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

That even reads well.

Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That reads best, and most clearly illustrates the claimed intention of the Founders. So why did they add:

A well regulated militia

????

 

[kwc57]

Definitely now a LYING spoiled rich kid and W clone...

I know, cut taxes on the rich, destroy Medicare, raise military spending, and get that deficit (in 2036. How dumb can the dupes get? Seriously...

No civil unions, let Wall St. run wild, drill in national parks, destroy Medicaid, SS, health reform, attack Iran, bait Russia and China, support Arab dictators...brilliant, dupes...unbelievable.

Oh look, the other poorly medicated fool showed up to TM's sandbox.

 

[kwc57]

They went to great lengths debating and carefully crafting the wording of our founding document.

Admittedly the text is vague, but if I had to guess at the meaning, I'd be pretty confident that they would be okay with whatever level of armament a typical infantryman would have access to.

These two statements are in conflict. I doubt that they crafted careful wording in order to be vague.

You can choose "vague" wording purposely. Especially when you know full well that technology will change over time and you don't want something as important as a founding document to be limited by those changes. There is no conflict there. The intent was for the people to have the right to bear arms.......period, end of story......not certain types of arms. What might be perceived as vague by those who would choose to give more power to the government and restrict the rights of the citizens, can actually be quite specific to those who understand the original intent.

 

[Immanuel]

why do you defend the assualt of a teenager and harp on the playground mistake Obama admitted to?

If no charges were filed then it was not an assault.

When I was in high school I and everyone I knew got into at least one fist fight and no assault charges were ever filed.

It was just dumb kids doing dumb things nothing more and nothing less than has been going on since there have been dumb kids.

Yeah, but today, said fist fight would get someone accused of being a domestic terrorist.

Not only that, but instead of being a fist fight, today, they come to said fist fight carrying 9mm weapons.

Fist fights when I was a kid were more about competition than anything else. Today, it is about staying alive.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

If they meant muskets, I believe they would have said muskets.

Admittedly the text is vague, but if I had to guess at the meaning, I'd be pretty confident that they would be okay with whatever level of armament a typical infantryman would have access to.

I don't think they were all that vague at all.



The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That seems pretty clear to me.

Sentence structure dictates that, removing the "being necessary to the security of a free state", the rest of the sentence should make sense. But:



That reads badly.



That reads well.



That even reads well.

Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That reads best, and most clearly illustrates the claimed intention of the Founders. So why did they add:

A well regulated militia

????

It seems quite clear to me:

The first part, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is the reason for the amendment. The second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is the right or protection that we have been given.

Immie

 

[Darkwind]

bla bla bal , this is NOT going away.

Your guy really fucked you and now you will lose this election.

Bullying is a very hot topic right now you idiots

Was Romney Smoking Reefer, Drinking Beer and 'Enthusiastically' Doing Drugs in High School?

Just curious

The October surprise. But you have to wait until they can find someone who is willing to sell their story back to them. I'm sure they can find another person who will, for the right price, speak of how horrible the Romney was when he was on reefer, and the time he kicked a gay kid when he was doing lines of coke....

But these kinds of stories don't just happen, ya know.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't think they were all that vague at all.



The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That seems pretty clear to me.

Sentence structure dictates that, removing the "being necessary to the security of a free state", the rest of the sentence should make sense. But:



That reads badly.



That reads well.



That even reads well.



That reads best, and most clearly illustrates the claimed intention of the Founders. So why did they add:

A well regulated militia

????

It seems quite clear to me:

The first part, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is the reason for the amendment. The second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is the right or protection that we have been given.

Immie

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Have a nice read. BTW..its a link to the Virginia Institute. In part, it reads:

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.

 

[Immanuel]

Sentence structure dictates that, removing the "being necessary to the security of a free state", the rest of the sentence should make sense. But:



That reads badly.



That reads well.



That even reads well.



That reads best, and most clearly illustrates the claimed intention of the Founders. So why did they add:

????

It seems quite clear to me:

The first part, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is the reason for the amendment. The second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is the right or protection that we have been given.

Immie

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Have a nice read. BTW..its a link to the Virginia Institute. In part, it reads:

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.

Okay, I have skimmed the link, (before you edited your post). It seems as if you are disgreeing with something I said, but in skimming the link, I don't see anything that disagrees with exactly what I stated.

I don't have time to read all of that at the moment, nor do I want to if there is nothing that opposes what I said, so tell me... were you disagreeing with me or giving the link as backup to what I said?

Edit: By the way, thanks for the link. I'm sure it is interesting in full.
Immie

 

[Darkwind]

It seems quite clear to me:

The first part, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is the reason for the amendment. The second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is the right or protection that we have been given.

Immie

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Have a nice read. BTW..its a link to the Virginia Institute. In part, it reads:

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.

Okay, I have skimmed the link, (before you edited your post). It seems as if you are disgreeing with something I said, but in skimming the link, I don't see anything that disagrees with exactly what I stated.

I don't have time to read all of that at the moment, nor do I want to if there is nothing that opposes what I said, so tell me... were you disagreeing with me or giving the link as backup to what I said?

Edit: By the way, thanks for the link. I'm sure it is interesting in full.
Immie

Okay, upon further review, I think I was disagreeing with who you were debating. Sorry.

 

[Immanuel]

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Have a nice read. BTW..its a link to the Virginia Institute. In part, it reads:

Okay, I have skimmed the link, (before you edited your post). It seems as if you are disgreeing with something I said, but in skimming the link, I don't see anything that disagrees with exactly what I stated.

I don't have time to read all of that at the moment, nor do I want to if there is nothing that opposes what I said, so tell me... were you disagreeing with me or giving the link as backup to what I said?

Edit: By the way, thanks for the link. I'm sure it is interesting in full.
Immie

Okay, upon further review, I think I was disagreeing with who you were debating. Sorry.

No problem.

I'm not sure I got everything right in what I wrote, but in reading the parts that I did of the link, it seemed, to me at least, that I was on the same track as the author.

Immie

 

[Conservative]

now kiss and make up...

 

[kwc57]

Sentence structure dictates that, removing the "being necessary to the security of a free state", the rest of the sentence should make sense. But:



That reads badly.



That reads well.



That even reads well.



That reads best, and most clearly illustrates the claimed intention of the Founders. So why did they add:

????

It seems quite clear to me:

The first part, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," is the reason for the amendment. The second part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is the right or protection that we have been given.

Immie

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Have a nice read. BTW..its a link to the Virginia Institute. In part, it reads:

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.

You just earned some rep!

 

[kwc57]

now kiss and make up...

But in a manly way.

 

[Liability]

now kiss and make up...

But in a manly way.

There IZ no manly way for a grown man to kiss another grown man.