| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ms My Rights" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2006 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Jan 2007 10:17:53 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B301DA.9F4C9314@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45AAF20D.3EA4474F@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of
the people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are
in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia
would cease to exist. As structured where people were
to report, when called, bearing their own arms that
militia couldn't function on its own without the right
of the people to have those arms. That is the reason
that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right,
but since the militia is subordinate to the right, the
right doesn't cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the
right of arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English
used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement to maintain a state militia as noted in those
times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so, and
that right would be protected by the 2nd.
Nope, no militia, the right evaporates. Context, context...
Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT come from
the Constitution and, IIRC, that would include the 2A.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
US Supreme Court, Rich. Read US v Cruikshank.
" The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there
specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not
a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second
amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has
been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than
to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people
to look for their protection against any violation by their
fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in
The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate
to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the
Constituton of the United States."
Here is a link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&invol
=54 2
You link doesn't work. Typical.
Yes, it does. You just had to move one number due to line lengths in
here. You really are a dumb wanker, aren't you.
Tsk. You dumb wanker, their links are case sensitive. Clear your cache or whatever
and try again.
I'll let you figure out which letters are involved ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Jan 2007 12:17:51 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B6DDF1.5F67837@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B301DA.9F4C9314@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45AAF20D.3EA4474F@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that
of the people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled
electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other,
books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine
that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to
avoid answering why the words "well regulated
militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the
state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with
the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia
would cease to exist. As structured where people
were to report, when called, bearing their own arms
that militia couldn't function on its own without
the right of the people to have those arms. That is
the reason that right is protected from the actions
of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced
right, but since the militia is subordinate to the
right, the right doesn't cease to exist without a
militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the
right of arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English
used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement to maintain a state militia as noted in those
times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so, and
that right would be protected by the 2nd.
Nope, no militia, the right evaporates. Context, context...
Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT come from
the Constitution and, IIRC, that would include the 2A.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
US Supreme Court, Rich. Read US v Cruikshank.
" The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right
there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in
any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
other effect than to restrict the powers of the national
government, leaving the people to look for their protection
against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it
recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11
Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal
legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal
police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the
United States."
Here is a link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&in
vol =54 2
You link doesn't work. Typical.
Yes, it does. You just had to move one number due to line lengths in
here. You really are a dumb wanker, aren't you.
Tsk. You dumb wanker, their links are case sensitive. Clear your cache
or whatever and try again.
I'll let you figure out which letters are involved ;)
Sorry, my links work. I have no problem with them.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Jan 2007 11:19:13 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that
of the people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled
electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other,
books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine
that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to
avoid answering why the words "well regulated
militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the
state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with
the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia
would cease to exist. As structured where people
were to report, when called, bearing their own arms
that militia couldn't function on its own without
the right of the people to have those arms. That is
the reason that right is protected from the actions
of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced
right, but since the militia is subordinate to the
right, the right doesn't cease to exist without a
militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the
right of arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English
used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement to maintain a state militia as noted in those
times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so, and
that right would be protected by the 2nd.
Nope, no militia, the right evaporates. Context, context...
Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT come from
the Constitution and, IIRC, that would include the 2A.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
US Supreme Court, Rich. Read US v Cruikshank.
" The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right
there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in
any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
other effect than to restrict the powers of the national
government, leaving the people to look for their protection
against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it
recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11
Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal
legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal
police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the
United States."
Here is a link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92&in
vol =54 2
You link doesn't work. Typical.
Yes, it does. You just had to move one number due to line lengths in
here. You really are a dumb wanker, aren't you.
Tsk. You dumb wanker, their links are case sensitive. Clear your cache
or whatever and try again.
I'll let you figure out which letters are involved ;)
Sorry, my links work. I have no problem with them.
Evidently Firefox 2 isn't as forgiving as whatever you're using ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
28 Jan 2007 03:00:25 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45BC3251.C94776C5@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky"
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com>
wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is
that > of the people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being
necessary
to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and read
books, shall
not be infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled
electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer
the question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other,
books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine
that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to
avoid answering why the words "well regulated
militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the
state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do
with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the
militia would cease to exist. As structured where
people were to report, when called, bearing their
own arms that militia couldn't function on its
own without the right of the people to have those
arms. That is the reason that right is protected
from the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced
right, but since the militia is subordinate to the
right, the right doesn't cease to exist without a
militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have
the right of arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the
English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms
is a requirement to maintain a state militia as noted
in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so,
and that right would be protected by the 2nd.
Nope, no militia, the right evaporates. Context,
context...
Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT come
from the Constitution and, IIRC, that would include the 2A.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
US Supreme Court, Rich. Read US v Cruikshank.
" The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right
there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;
but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall
not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments
that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the
national government, leaving the people to look for their
protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of
the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New
York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely
municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the
Constituton of the United States."
Here is a link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=92
&in vol =54 2
You link doesn't work. Typical.
Yes, it does. You just had to move one number due to line lengths
in here. You really are a dumb wanker, aren't you.
Tsk. You dumb wanker, their links are case sensitive. Clear your
cache or whatever and try again.
I'll let you figure out which letters are involved ;)
Sorry, my links work. I have no problem with them.
Evidently Firefox 2 isn't as forgiving as whatever you're using ;)
Firefox 2. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
02 Jan 2007 12:06:54 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4599ADFC.C0C59A2D@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a requirement
to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
Two problems with your statement.
1. Most states still do have militias or state guards....
2. RKBA does not come from militia service. Indeed, militias, as
formed, could not have existed without the citizens having RKBA.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 10:35:59 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a requirement
to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
Two problems with your statement.
1. Most states still do have militias or state guards....
What militia are you in, who is your commanding officer, when do you
train, where do you train? Do you supply your own flintlock?
2. RKBA does not come from militia service. Indeed, militias, as
formed, could not have existed without the citizens having RKBA.
The 2nd only mentions militia.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 09:33:57 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45A1CA2F.945F7C07@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are in the
amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would
cease to exist. As structured where people were to report,
when called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't
function on its own without the right of the people to have
those arms. That is the reason that right is protected from
the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but
since the militia is subordinate to the right, the right
doesn't cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of
arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement
to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
Two problems with your statement.
1. Most states still do have militias or state guards....
What militia are you in, who is your commanding officer, when do you
train, where do you train? Do you supply your own flintlock?
I am not a member but I still have RKBA. Sorry.
2. RKBA does not come from militia service. Indeed, militias, as
formed, could not have existed without the citizens having RKBA.
The 2nd only mentions militia.
You don't think that the Constitution is a limit on the people do you?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Jan 2007 09:53:15 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are in the
amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would
cease to exist. As structured where people were to report,
when called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't
function on its own without the right of the people to have
those arms. That is the reason that right is protected from
the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but
since the militia is subordinate to the right, the right
doesn't cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of
arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement
to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
Two problems with your statement.
1. Most states still do have militias or state guards....
What militia are you in, who is your commanding officer, when do you
train, where do you train? Do you supply your own flintlock?
I am not a member but I still have RKBA. Sorry.
No militia eh? ;)
2. RKBA does not come from militia service. Indeed, militias, as
formed, could not have existed without the citizens having RKBA.
The 2nd only mentions militia.
You don't think that the Constitution is a limit on the people do you?
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the
Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings
of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised
all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to mention, for example,
limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
17 Jan 2007 11:42:40 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45AAFAAB.91667B65@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of
the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are in
the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would
cease to exist. As structured where people were to report,
when called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't
function on its own without the right of the people to
have those arms. That is the reason that right is
protected from the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right,
but since the militia is subordinate to the right, the right
doesn't cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right
of arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement
to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
Two problems with your statement.
1. Most states still do have militias or state guards....
What militia are you in, who is your commanding officer, when do
you train, where do you train? Do you supply your own flintlock?
I am not a member but I still have RKBA. Sorry.
No militia eh? ;)
2. RKBA does not come from militia service. Indeed, militias, as
formed, could not have existed without the citizens having RKBA.
The 2nd only mentions militia.
You don't think that the Constitution is a limit on the people do
you?
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to mention,
for example, limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
That limit is not on the people. It is how the government is to operate.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
20 Jan 2007 11:57:27 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of
the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are in
the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would
cease to exist. As structured where people were to report,
when called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't
function on its own without the right of the people to
have those arms. That is the reason that right is
protected from the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right,
but since the militia is subordinate to the right, the right
doesn't cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right
of arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement
to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
Two problems with your statement.
1. Most states still do have militias or state guards....
What militia are you in, who is your commanding officer, when do
you train, where do you train? Do you supply your own flintlock?
I am not a member but I still have RKBA. Sorry.
No militia eh? ;)
2. RKBA does not come from militia service. Indeed, militias, as
formed, could not have existed without the citizens having RKBA.
The 2nd only mentions militia.
You don't think that the Constitution is a limit on the people do
you?
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to mention,
for example, limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
That limit is not on the people. It is how the government is to operate.
Wrong again. Remember - the militia is used against the people when they're
in a state of insurrection.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
21 Jan 2007 12:13:12 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B300C7.1D488BA0@hotmMOVEail.com:
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to mention,
for example, limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
That limit is not on the people. It is how the government is to
operate.
Wrong again. Remember - the militia is used against the people when
they're in a state of insurrection.
The *use* of the militia in certain circumstance is a *power* of the
government. The fact that the times it may be used is listed is a limit
on that power.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Jan 2007 10:13:59 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B300C7.1D488BA0@hotmMOVEail.com:
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to mention,
for example, limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
That limit is not on the people. It is how the government is to
operate.
Wrong again. Remember - the militia is used against the people when
they're in a state of insurrection.
The *use* of the militia in certain circumstance is a *power* of the
government. The fact that the times it may be used is listed is a limit
on that power.
Then it's not entirely meant as a check on the government. Thanks.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Jan 2007 12:17:02 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:45B6DD07.DC334497
@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B300C7.1D488BA0@hotmMOVEail.com:
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These
show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to
mention,
for example, limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
That limit is not on the people. It is how the government is to
operate.
Wrong again. Remember - the militia is used against the people when
they're in a state of insurrection.
The *use* of the militia in certain circumstance is a *power* of the
government. The fact that the times it may be used is listed is a
limit
on that power.
Then it's not entirely meant as a check on the government. Thanks.
No one has claimed it was........in either the state militias as regarded
in the 2A or the national militia as regarded in Article I.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Jan 2007 11:12:35 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:45B6DD07.DC334497
@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B300C7.1D488BA0@hotmMOVEail.com:
Since, as per Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from
the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of
Colonies
and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These
show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
it would appear that some limit is indeed in place. Not to
mention,
for example, limits
on eligibility for office, or limits on states...
That limit is not on the people. It is how the government is to
operate.
Wrong again. Remember - the militia is used against the people when
they're in a state of insurrection.
The *use* of the militia in certain circumstance is a *power* of the
government. The fact that the times it may be used is listed is a
limit
on that power.
Then it's not entirely meant as a check on the government. Thanks.
No one has claimed it was........in either the state militias as regarded
YOU HAVE.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republican/msg/cbda9e50d71791e8?dmode=source
...
From: "Scout" <4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
...
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:40:43 -0500
...
The part where you implied it can't be much of a check against the
government.
If their control isn't unlimited then the militia certainly can be a check
on the government and a rather significant one too.
in the 2A or the national militia as regarded in Article I.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 12:40:30 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to exist.
As structured where people were to report, when called, bearing their own
arms that militia couldn't function on its own without the right of the
people to have those arms. That is the reason that right is protected
from the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since the
militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to exist
without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms but
fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
RT
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
Here's some remedial reading for you:
The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/06/greenslade.htm
Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
28 Dec 2006 11:23:28 AM |
|
|
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:v4zkh.15507$_X.10228@bigfe9:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
RT
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
Here's some remedial reading for you:
The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/06/greenslade.htm
Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm
Add:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
Or perhaps, he would like to debate it with Laurence Tribe. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:58:02 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:v4zkh.15507$_X.10228@bigfe9:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
RT
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
Here's some remedial reading for you:
The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/06/greenslade.htm
Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm
Add:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
Or perhaps, he would like to debate it with Laurence Tribe. ;)
Add - for your benefit: http://www.englishlearning.com/en/ppigv.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
02 Jan 2007 12:08:07 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4599AE1A.BC3CFB87@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:v4zkh.15507$_X.10228@bigfe9:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease
to exist. As structured where people were to report, when
called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on
its own without the right of the people to have those arms.
That is the reason that right is protected from the actions of
the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but
since the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't
cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of
arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
RT
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
Here's some remedial reading for you:
The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/06/greenslade.htm
Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment
By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/13/greenslade.htm
Add:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
Or perhaps, he would like to debate it with Laurence Tribe. ;)
Add - for your benefit: http://www.englishlearning.com/en/ppigv.html
I would think that Tribe's definition would carry more weight with me
than your misunderstanding of another cite.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 10:48:12 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4599AE1A.BC3CFB87@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:v4zkh.15507$_X.10228@bigfe9:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease
to exist. As structured where people were to report, when
called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on
its own | | | | | |
