Active Users:246 Time:15/05/2024 07:35:08 PM
It makes a huge difference when (incorrectly) claiming to know the text. Joel Send a noteboard - 28/12/2012 11:31:51 PM
You might also find it interesting to discover what the terms "well regulated" and "militia" meant in colonial times.

I am familiar with both but, while interesting, it is not RELEVANT unless we live in colonial times (note: We do not. ;))

Congratualations on passing a high school AP exam, so did I (several actually). yippee, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Too bad if my spelling bothers you (BTW spelling and grammar are 2 different disciplines). I usually use a spell checker to catch most of them but there isn't that much I can do about it, bad spelling (especially typographical error) is a side effect of my dyslexia. You should see it before I correct it. :)

I can only pray "dependant" is not in your spell checker; if it is, I urge its prompt removal. Spelling and grammar are distinct concepts, yes, but I would not call them distinct DISCIPLINES; they are closely related, and both are integral to proper use and comprehension of English. A 3 is a passing score on the AP English exam; a 5 is a PERFECT score (note: "passing"=/="perfect.") I claim no great laurels for that (it got me A credit for two three-hour English classes at UT, but since Plan II majors are required to take Plan II Freshman English anyway that did not matter much except for GPA.) The point was that I neither require nor desire your persistent remedial grammar lessons. I know what a dependent clause is, but also know it cannot change causality (if only....)

Yes, it is my position that the REASON they felt that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is not relevant. The fact of the matter is that the amendment says that the right of the PEOPLE (not militia) to keep and bear arms shall not (not "only slightly", or "not unreasonably" )be infringed.

The propositions first, dependent, clause is also its antecedent; as such, that sets the limits and basis of the second, independent, clause, which is also its consequent. You are essentially contending half the Second Amendment is superfluous, a decidedly odd position for a "strict constructionist."

The 2nd amendment is written as an absolute, not a conditional statement. We can discuss why they wanted it an absolte. We can debat to what extent they felt that modern military weapons belonged in the hands of civillians (bear in mind that they were ok with private ownership of cannon). However, the plain text of the 2nd amendment is not debatable, it simply is.

I will meet you half way: It is absolutely conditional. :P I am as amenable to private ownership of cannon as they were: Perfectly legal and wholly subject to regulation.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1474 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 938 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 860 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 813 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 965 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1123 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 499 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 793 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 805 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 828 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 805 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 868 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 762 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 778 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 830 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 813 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 803 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 830 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 805 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 842 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1004 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 743 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 791 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 713 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 885 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 934 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 533 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 755 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 472 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 861 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 656 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 830 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 889 Views
Ironically, you misspelled "learn." - 28/12/2012 05:15:17 PM 1124 Views
2 commas or 4 makes no difference one is a 12D the other is a sentance. - 28/12/2012 10:55:31 PM 756 Views
It makes a huge difference when (incorrectly) claiming to know the text. - 28/12/2012 11:31:51 PM 1067 Views
and by REGULATED, the authors meeant "able to use it effectively" - 29/12/2012 03:47:57 PM 821 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 830 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 751 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 832 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 751 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 553 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 846 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 826 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 770 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 739 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 724 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 734 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 475 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 743 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 459 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 922 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 729 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 728 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 475 Views

Reply to Message