| 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? |
14 Jan 2007 09:55:07 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:45A1CE2B.730C95A3
@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:459B125F.1D19DF55@hotmMOVEail.com:
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive clause
it's information is not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia there if
they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things with more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem for you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate amendments...
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
17 Jan 2007 11:43:57 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45AAFB1B.9A84D90@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45A1CE2B.730C95A3 @hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:459B125F.1D19DF55@hotmMOVEail.com:
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive
clause it's information is not essential to the meaning of the
sentence. That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia there
if they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things with more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem for you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate
amendments...
Because the Second Amendment addresses a *protection* of the right to
keep and bear arms and tells why it needs that protection from the
federal government. Even you can figure that out........can't 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? |
20 Jan 2007 11:56:37 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
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive
clause it's information is not essential to the meaning of the
sentence. That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia there
if they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things with more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem for you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate
amendments...
Because the Second Amendment addresses a *protection* of the right to
keep and bear arms and tells why it needs that protection from the
federal government. Even you can figure that out........can't you?
Uh, no, that's not what it says because the militia is used AGAINST the
people when they're in a state of insurrection. Remember?????????????????
NOT a two part amendment.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
21 Jan 2007 12:11:50 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:45B30095.5578CB61
@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
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive
clause it's information is not essential to the meaning of
the
sentence. That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia
there
if they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things with
more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem for
you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate
amendments...
Because the Second Amendment addresses a *protection* of the right to
keep and bear arms and tells why it needs that protection from the
federal government. Even you can figure that out........can't you?
Uh, no, that's not what it says because the militia is used AGAINST the
people when they're in a state of insurrection.
Remember?????????????????
NOT a two part amendment.
Your ignorance of anything with more than one part does not sit well.
Sorry.
--
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 10:11:51 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:45B30095.5578CB61
@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
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive
clause it's information is not essential to the meaning of
the
sentence. That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia
there
if they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things with
more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem for
you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate
amendments...
Because the Second Amendment addresses a *protection* of the right to
keep and bear arms and tells why it needs that protection from the
federal government. Even you can figure that out........can't you?
Uh, no, that's not what it says because the militia is used AGAINST the
people when they're in a state of insurrection.
Remember?????????????????
NOT a two part amendment.
Your ignorance of anything with more than one part does not sit well.
Sorry.
Your ignorance in mistaking two for one does not sit well. Sorry.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Jan 2007 12:15:57 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B6DC87.3B043396@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B30095.5578CB61 @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
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a
non-restrictive clause it's information is not essential
to the meaning of
the
sentence. That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia
there
if they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things
with
more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem
for
you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate
amendments...
Because the Second Amendment addresses a *protection* of the right
to keep and bear arms and tells why it needs that protection from
the federal government. Even you can figure that out........can't
you?
Uh, no, that's not what it says because the militia is used AGAINST
the people when they're in a state of insurrection.
Remember?????????????????
NOT a two part amendment.
Your ignorance of anything with more than one part does not sit well.
Sorry.
Your ignorance in mistaking two for one does not sit well. Sorry.
If you don't think that the 2A has to phrases in it, each with a
different subject, you need to go back to remedial english.
--
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 10:56:48 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B6DC87.3B043396@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45B30095.5578CB61 @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
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a
non-restrictive clause it's information is not essential
to the meaning of
the
sentence. That fact that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia
there
if they're NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence???
It's a two part amendment.
HAHHAHHAHA - gasp wheeze, another keeper!
I can understand from exchanging posts with you, why things
with
more
than one idea or words of several syllables would be problem
for
you.
Tell us what the two parts are and why they aren't in separate
amendments...
Because the Second Amendment addresses a *protection* of the right
to keep and bear arms and tells why it needs that protection from
the federal government. Even you can figure that out........can't
you?
Uh, no, that's not what it says because the militia is used AGAINST
the people when they're in a state of insurrection.
Remember?????????????????
NOT a two part amendment.
Your ignorance of anything with more than one part does not sit well.
Sorry.
Your ignorance in mistaking two for one does not sit well. Sorry.
If you don't think that the 2A has to phrases in it, each with a
different subject, you need to go back to remedial english.
Where did I say it didn't have phrases?
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 10:42:40 PM |
|
|
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
<snipperage>
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.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
Is a subordinating clause a restrictive clause? No, it isn't, nor can it be.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3b.htm
A subordinating clause may contain a restrictive clause within it with
no affect on the independent clause what-so-ever. Any restrictive clause
within a subordinate clause would only have an effect on the subordinate
clause.
Hmm. Your link does not mention the word "restrictive"...
No word in the first clause of the Second Amendment identifies specific
qualities of a noun or pronoun in the second [independent] clause, hence
the first clause is not a "restrictive clause."
The first clause of the 2ndA does modify the second clause but it does
not restrict it in any way.
No? The militia is a subset of the people. That's why it's in there. That's
how it restricts.
I know you'll want to ask "then what's the word "militia" there for?"
since I've seen you ask others that already.
It does exactly what I've stated, it is part of a clause that modifies
[adds meaning to] the independent clause, but it does not restrict it.
Except you missed that the militia is a subset of the people, and thus
restricts.
Third try, read what I am asking you, "Care to take another shot and
explain how the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause?"
What is your "precedence" strawman? Where are you getting this nonsense?
Hint: You cant, because a subordinate clause does not take precedence
over an independent clause. It may modify, add meaning to, or influence,
but it does not restrict.
Which you were unable to show.
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
Yes it does, however, since the first part of the Second Amendment is a
subordinating clause and not a restrictive clause, what's your point?
It sorta negates all you wrote above.
The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a
free State" is also an "absolute phrase", also called a "nominative
absolute". A nominative absolute consists of a noun or noun substitute
and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the
sentence.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The connection is in *meaning* of the sentence. DO you understand the difference????
The example on that page explains WHY the trip was postponed. It is thus
essential to the MEANING of the sentence.
You may sit down now.
And where do you comprehend you've acquired the authority to grant
anyone, me included, permission to perform that action?
Remain standing, then, until you understand the difference outlined above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 04:01:34 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
<snipperage>
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.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
Is a subordinating clause a restrictive clause? No, it isn't, nor can it be.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3b.htm
A subordinating clause may contain a restrictive clause within it with
no affect on the independent clause what-so-ever. Any restrictive clause
within a subordinate clause would only have an effect on the subordinate
clause.
Hmm. Your link does not mention the word "restrictive"...
Correct. It defines a subordinate clause though. A subordinate clause
depends on the main clause--a main clause does not depend on the
subordinate clause.
Once you understand that we can make some progression.
No word in the first clause of the Second Amendment identifies specific
qualities of a noun or pronoun in the second [independent] clause, hence
the first clause is not a "restrictive clause."
The first clause of the 2ndA does modify the second clause but it does
not restrict it in any way.
No? The militia is a subset of the people. That's why it's in there. That's
how it restricts.
OK, the militia is a subset of the people.
The right expressed in the Second Amendment is the "right of the people"
not the right of the militia.
A subset of the people being organized into companies, trained in drill,
formations, and maneuvers does not restrict the right of the rest of the
people to keep and bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment.
I know you'll want to ask "then what's the word "militia" there for?"
since I've seen you ask others that already.
It does exactly what I've stated, it is part of a clause that modifies
[adds meaning to] the independent clause, but it does not restrict it.
Except you missed that the militia is a subset of the people, and thus
restricts.
The whole has the right so that the subset may be formed--thus it
doesn't restrict.
Third try, read what I am asking you, "Care to take another shot and
explain how the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause?"
What is your "precedence" strawman? Where are you getting this nonsense?
Strawman? "I don't think so Tim"-Al Borland.
You're the one stating that what is said in the subordinate clause
overrides the independent clause.
I've asked you to explain that... you've failed to do so.
Hint: You cant, because a subordinate clause does not take precedence
over an independent clause. It may modify, add meaning to, or influence,
but it does not restrict.
Which you were unable to show.
Your failure to comprehend is not my fault. You've been provided links
to relevant sites defining English. It was pointed out to you that the
site you used as a cite disproved your assertion-yet you still say "did
not".
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
Yes it does, however, since the first part of the Second Amendment is a
subordinating clause and not a restrictive clause, what's your point?
It sorta negates all you wrote above.
Only if the clause is a restrictive clause. Since it's not, you're wrong.
The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a
free State" is also an "absolute phrase", also called a "nominative
absolute". A nominative absolute consists of a noun or noun substitute
and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the
sentence.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The connection is in *meaning* of the sentence. DO you understand the difference????
As I've said, it adds to but does not detract from. It modifies. It
enhances. It does not restrict.
"Meaning" is not the same as "grammatical connection". Do you understand
the difference?
Also, I don't pull these definitions out of thin air. They are the rules
of English.
The example on that page explains WHY the trip was postponed. It is thus
essential to the MEANING of the sentence.
As I've explained to you several times now, it modifies/adds to the
sentence. It does not restrict the sentence.
In that example, the trip was postponed. That's the point of the
sentence. Why was the trip postponed? Due to weather. The weather
doesn't restrict the fact that a trip was planned.
You may sit down now.
And where do you comprehend you've acquired the authority to grant
anyone, me included, permission to perform that action?
Remain standing, then, until you understand the difference outlined above.
You should ask an English teacher/professor to examine and explain the
sentence structure of the Second Amendment to you since you've
demonstrated an inability to comprehend it on your own.
Other people already have, you can read about it here:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Jan 2007 10:02:19 PM |
|
|
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
<snipperage>
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.
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
Is a subordinating clause a restrictive clause? No, it isn't, nor can it be.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3b.htm
A subordinating clause may contain a restrictive clause within it with
no affect on the independent clause what-so-ever. Any restrictive clause
within a subordinate clause would only have an effect on the subordinate
clause.
Hmm. Your link does not mention the word "restrictive"...
Correct. It defines a subordinate clause though. A subordinate clause
depends on the main clause--a main clause does not depend on the
subordinate clause.
Once you understand that we can make some progression.
Once you understand THIS we can make some progress (not progression):
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
No word in the first clause of the Second Amendment identifies specific
qualities of a noun or pronoun in the second [independent] clause, hence
the first clause is not a "restrictive clause."
The first clause of the 2ndA does modify the second clause but it does
not restrict it in any way.
No? The militia is a subset of the people. That's why it's in there. That's
how it restricts.
OK, the militia is a subset of the people.
The right expressed in the Second Amendment is the "right of the people"
not the right of the militia.
A subset of the people being organized into companies, trained in drill,
formations, and maneuvers does not restrict the right of the rest of the
people to keep and bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment.
As bounded by the term militia. Thanks.
I know you'll want to ask "then what's the word "militia" there for?"
since I've seen you ask others that already.
It does exactly what I've stated, it is part of a clause that modifies
[adds meaning to] the independent clause, but it does not restrict it.
Except you missed that the militia is a subset of the people, and thus
restricts.
The whole has the right so that the subset may be formed--thus it
doesn't restrict.
The militia requirement is the rationale for same. And, as Miller states
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.
which, at the least, excludes women. Other passages mention age restrictions.
Third try, read what I am asking you, "Care to take another shot and
explain how the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause?"
What is your "precedence" strawman? Where are you getting this nonsense?
Strawman? "I don't think so Tim"-Al Borland.
You're the one stating that what is said in the subordinate clause
overrides the independent clause.
I've asked you to explain that... you've failed to do so.
No where did I claim override. Quit making stuff up.
Hint: You cant, because a subordinate clause does not take precedence
over an independent clause. It may modify, add meaning to, or influence,
but it does not restrict.
Which you were unable to show.
Your failure to comprehend is not my fault. You've been provided links
to relevant sites defining English. It was pointed out to you that the
site you used as a cite disproved your assertion-yet you still say "did
not".
Your failure to show is not my fault. You were provided with links to relevant
sites defining English - like this one
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
Yes it does, however, since the first part of the Second Amendment is a
subordinating clause and not a restrictive clause, what's your point?
It sorta negates all you wrote above.
Only if the clause is a restrictive clause. Since it's not, you're wrong.
Actually, it is. You've actually admitted up above by agreeing the militia is a
SUBSET
of the people. Thanks! You walked into that one.
The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a
free State" is also an "absolute phrase", also called a "nominative
absolute". A nominative absolute consists of a noun or noun substitute
and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the
sentence.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The connection is in *meaning* of the sentence. DO you understand the difference????
As I've said, it adds to but does not detract from. It modifies. It
enhances. It does not restrict.
"Meaning" is not the same as "grammatical connection". Do you understand
the difference?
Also, I don't pull these definitions out of thin air. They are the rules
of English.
Since you agreed up above that the militia is a subset of the people, you are
admitting it's a restriction.
The example on that page explains WHY the trip was postponed. It is thus
essential to the MEANING of the sentence.
As I've explained to you several times now, it modifies/adds to the
sentence. It does not restrict the sentence.
In that example, the trip was postponed. That's the point of the
sentence. Why was the trip postponed? Due to weather. The weather
doesn't restrict the fact that a trip was planned.
See above re your agreement...
You may sit down now.
And where do you comprehend you've acquired the authority to grant
anyone, me included, permission to perform that action?
Remain standing, then, until you understand the difference outlined above.
You should ask an English teacher/professor to examine and explain the
sentence structure of the Second Amendment to you since you've
demonstrated an inability to comprehend it on your own.
Other people already have, you can read about it here:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Moot since you have agreed the militia is a subset of the people, thus placing
a restriction thereon.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Jan 2007 11:37:18 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
<snipperage>
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.
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
Is a subordinating clause a restrictive clause? No, it isn't, nor can it be.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3b.htm
A subordinating clause may contain a restrictive clause within it with
no affect on the independent clause what-so-ever. Any restrictive clause
within a subordinate clause would only have an effect on the subordinate
clause.
Hmm. Your link does not mention the word "restrictive"...
Correct. It defines a subordinate clause though. A subordinate clause
depends on the main clause--a main clause does not depend on the
subordinate clause.
Once you understand that we can make some progression.
Once you understand THIS we can make some progress (not progression):
Progression I said and progression I meant. A passing successively from
one member of a series to the next; succession; sequence. As opposed to
a movement toward a goal--progress.
Once you understand the first step [what a subordinate clause is] we can
move on to the next step [restrictive/non-restrictive clauses and how to
identify them].
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
I understand it. The problem we have here is that you don't understand it.
No word in the first clause of the Second Amendment identifies specific
qualities of a noun or pronoun in the second [independent] clause, hence
the first clause is not a "restrictive clause."
The first clause of the 2ndA does modify the second clause but it does
not restrict it in any way.
No? The militia is a subset of the people. That's why it's in there. That's
how it restricts.
OK, the militia is a subset of the people.
The right expressed in the Second Amendment is the "right of the people"
not the right of the militia.
A subset of the people being organized into companies, trained in drill,
formations, and maneuvers does not restrict the right of the rest of the
people to keep and bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment.
As bounded by the term militia. Thanks.
Nope. And you've failed to demonstrate such "bounded by" restriction.
You assert it in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to your
position.
I know you'll want to ask "then what's the word "militia" there for?"
since I've seen you ask others that already.
It does exactly what I've stated, it is part of a clause that modifies
[adds meaning to] the independent clause, but it does not restrict it.
Except you missed that the militia is a subset of the people, and thus
restricts.
The whole has the right so that the subset may be formed--thus it
doesn't restrict.
The militia requirement is the rationale for same. And, as Miller states
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.
which, at the least, excludes women. Other passages mention age restrictions.
Third try, read what I am asking you, "Care to take another shot and
explain how the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause?"
What is your "precedence" strawman? Where are you getting this nonsense?
Strawman? "I don't think so Tim"-Al Borland.
You're the one stating that what is said in the subordinate clause
overrides the independent clause.
I've asked you to explain that... you've failed to do so.
No where did I claim override. Quit making stuff up.
You're asserting that "the right of the people" is overridden by the
word "militia"--that the right of the people expressed in the
declaratory clause is limited by a word in a subordinate clause.
The subordinate clause is not a restrictive clause. Your
misunderstanding of the basic structure of English is the problem here.
Hint: You cant, because a subordinate clause does not take precedence
over an independent clause. It may modify, add meaning to, or influence,
but it does not restrict.
Which you were unable to show.
Your failure to comprehend is not my fault. You've been provided links
to relevant sites defining English. It was pointed out to you that the
site you used as a cite disproved your assertion-yet you still say "did
not".
Your failure to show is not my fault. You were provided with links to relevant
sites defining English - like this one
As were you.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
You should read farther down the page there and look at the
non-restrictive clause part also.
Your own page cite refutes your assertion.
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
Yes it does, however, since the first part of the Second Amendment is a
subordinating clause and not a restrictive clause, what's your point?
It sorta negates all you wrote above.
Only if the clause is a restrictive clause. Since it's not, you're wrong.
Actually, it is. You've actually admitted up above by agreeing the militia is a
SUBSET
of the people. Thanks! You walked into that one.
The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a
free State" is also an "absolute phrase", also called a "nominative
absolute". A nominative absolute consists of a noun or noun substitute
and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the
sentence.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The connection is in *meaning* of the sentence. DO you understand the difference????
As I've said, it adds to but does not detract from. It modifies. It
enhances. It does not restrict.
"Meaning" is not the same as "grammatical connection". Do you understand
the difference?
Also, I don't pull these definitions out of thin air. They are the rules
of English.
Since you agreed up above that the militia is a subset of the people, you are
admitting it's a restriction.
No.
It's in addition to not a restriction of.
The example on that page explains WHY the trip was postponed. It is thus
essential to the MEANING of the sentence.
As I've explained to you several times now, it modifies/adds to the
sentence. It does not restrict the sentence.
In that example, the trip was postponed. That's the point of the
sentence. Why was the trip postponed? Due to weather. The weather
doesn't restrict the fact that a trip was planned.
See above re your agreement...
A subset is not the whole. The right expressed is of the whole not of
the subset.
You may sit down now.
And where do you comprehend you've acquired the authority to grant
anyone, me included, permission to perform that action?
Remain standing, then, until you understand the difference outlined above.
You should ask an English teacher/professor to examine and explain the
sentence structure of the Second Amendment to you since you've
demonstrated an inability to comprehend it on your own.
Other people already have, you can read about it here:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Moot since you have agreed the militia is a subset of the people, thus placing
a restriction thereon.
RT
A subset is not the whole. The right expressed is of the whole not of
the subset. The fact that a subset is required for a purpose in no way
restricts the whole for other purposes.
The Militia is a subset of the people. The militia is dependent on the
people. No people, no militia. Can't have a militia without people. You
can have people and no militia.
The militia is in the subordinate clause. The militia is subordinate to
the people. The people are not subordinate to the militia.
The right expressed is a right of the people, not a right of the
militia. The right of the people exists independent of the existence of
a militia. The right is protected so that a militia may be formed. If no
militia is formed the right still exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
20 Jan 2007 10:33:43 PM |
|
|
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
<snipperage>
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.
If you think the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause you're truly twisted.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
Is a subordinating clause a restrictive clause? No, it isn't, nor can it be.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/sentence/2_3b.htm
A subordinating clause may contain a restrictive clause within it with
no affect on the independent clause what-so-ever. Any restrictive clause
within a subordinate clause would only have an effect on the subordinate
clause.
Hmm. Your link does not mention the word "restrictive"...
Correct. It defines a subordinate clause though. A subordinate clause
depends on the main clause--a main clause does not depend on the
subordinate clause.
Once you understand that we can make some progression.
Once you understand THIS we can make some progress (not progression):
Progression I said and progression I meant. A passing successively from
one member of a series to the next; succession; sequence. As opposed to
a movement toward a goal--progress.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progression
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
1. the act of progressing; forward or onward movement.
...
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
1. The process of progressing; progress.
You blew even this simple bit.
Once you understand the first step [what a subordinate clause is] we can
move on to the next step [restrictive/non-restrictive clauses and how to
identify them].
Once you understand you've blown it again we can move on to the next step.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
I understand it. The problem we have here is that you don't understand it.
Oh but I do. It's just that it doesn't fit with your preconceived notions.
No word in the first clause of the Second Amendment identifies specific
qualities of a noun or pronoun in the second [independent] clause, hence
the first clause is not a "restrictive clause."
The first clause of the 2ndA does modify the second clause but it does
not restrict it in any way.
No? The militia is a subset of the people. That's why it's in there. That's
how it restricts.
OK, the militia is a subset of the people.
The right expressed in the Second Amendment is the "right of the people"
not the right of the militia.
A subset of the people being organized into companies, trained in drill,
formations, and maneuvers does not restrict the right of the rest of the
people to keep and bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment.
As bounded by the term militia. Thanks.
Nope. And you've failed to demonstrate such "bounded by" restriction.
You assert it in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to your
position.
"the militia is a subset of the people" - You.
I know you'll want to ask "then what's the word "militia" there for?"
since I've seen you ask others that already.
It does exactly what I've stated, it is part of a clause that modifies
[adds meaning to] the independent clause, but it does not restrict it.
Except you missed that the militia is a subset of the people, and thus
restricts.
The whole has the right so that the subset may be formed--thus it
doesn't restrict.
The militia requirement is the rationale for same. And, as Miller states
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.
which, at the least, excludes women. Other passages mention age restrictions.
Third try, read what I am asking you, "Care to take another shot and
explain how the subordinating clause takes precedence over the
independent clause?"
What is your "precedence" strawman? Where are you getting this nonsense?
Strawman? "I don't think so Tim"-Al Borland.
You're the one stating that what is said in the subordinate clause
overrides the independent clause.
I've asked you to explain that... you've failed to do so.
No where did I claim override. Quit making stuff up.
You're asserting that "the right of the people" is overridden by the
word "militia"--that the right of the people expressed in the
declaratory clause is limited by a word in a subordinate clause.
The subordinate clause is not a restrictive clause. Your
misunderstanding of the basic structure of English is the problem here.
There you go again. Nowhere am I claiming any overridding. You have some
VERY fundamental reading problems.
Hint: You cant, because a subordinate clause does not take precedence
over an independent clause. It may modify, add meaning to, or influence,
but it does not restrict.
Which you were unable to show.
Your failure to comprehend is not my fault. You've been provided links
to relevant sites defining English. It was pointed out to you that the
site you used as a cite disproved your assertion-yet you still say "did
not".
Your failure to show is not my fault. You were provided with links to relevant
sites defining English - like this one
As were you.
Obviously, based on your fundamental reading problems (see above), it hasn't done
you any good.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
You should read farther down the page there and look at the
non-restrictive clause part also.
Your own page cite refutes your assertion.
You claim that but don't show it.
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
Yes it does, however, since the first part of the Second Amendment is a
subordinating clause and not a restrictive clause, what's your point?
It sorta negates all you wrote above.
Only if the clause is a restrictive clause. Since it's not, you're wrong.
Actually, it is. You've actually admitted up above by agreeing the militia is a
SUBSET
of the people. Thanks! You walked into that one.
The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a
free State" is also an "absolute phrase", also called a "nominative
absolute". A nominative absolute consists of a noun or noun substitute
and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the
sentence.
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
The connection is in *meaning* of the sentence. DO you understand the difference????
As I've said, it adds to but does not detract from. It modifies. It
enhances. It does not restrict.
"Meaning" is not the same as "grammatical connection". Do you understand
the difference?
Also, I don't pull these definitions out of thin air. They are the rules
of English.
Since you agreed up above that the militia is a subset of the people, you are
admitting it's a restriction.
No.
It's in addition to not a restriction of.
It puts bounds on "people".
The example on that page explains WHY the trip was postponed. It is thus
essential to the MEANING of the sentence.
As I've explained to you several times now, it modifies/adds to the
sentence. It does not restrict the sentence.
In that example, the trip was postponed. That's the point of the
sentence. Why was the trip postponed? Due to weather. The weather
doesn't restrict the fact that a trip was planned.
See above re your agreement...
A subset is not the whole. The right expressed is of the whole not of
the subset.
Uh, no, it shows the right is conditional and if you read Miller, it shows it's
not inclusive.
You may sit down now.
And where do you comprehend you've acquired the authority to grant
anyone, me included, permission to perform that action?
Remain standing, then, until you understand the difference outlined above.
You should ask an English teacher/professor to examine and explain the
sentence structure of the Second Amendment to you since you've
demonstrated an inability to comprehend it on your own.
Other people already have, you can read about it here:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Moot since you have agreed the militia is a subset of the people, thus placing
a restriction thereon.
A subset is not the whole. The right expressed is of the whole not of
the subset. The fact that a subset is required for a purpose in no way
restricts the whole for other purposes.
The Militia is a subset of the people. The militia is dependent on the
people. No people, no militia. Can't have a militia without people. You
can have people and no militia.
The militia is in the subordinate clause. The militia is subordinate to
the people. The people are not subordinate to the militia.
The right expressed is a right of the people, not a right of the
militia. The right of the people exists independent of the existence of
a militia. The right is protected so that a militia may be formed. If no
militia is formed the right still exists.
"The Militia is a subset of the people" - placing bounds on "people". Miller
gives several examples of militia composition and that reflect this.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 10:49:54 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:459B0AD4.33AB2C38@hotmMOVEail.com...
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
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.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or
otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject of a
sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific
qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
You may sit down now.
And you may not look at your OWN cite and note the following.
"Non-restrictive clauses provide descriptive information that isn't
essential to the meaning of the sentence."
Fascinating. Too bad that doesn't apply to "a well regulated militia"...
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive clause it's
information is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. That fact that
clause is non-restrictive can be easily established by the fact that it does
not identify specific qualities about the nouns or pronouns in the main
clause.
As such your OWN source shoots down your assertion that the 2nd is limited
by the subordinate clause which your OWN source indicates would be a
non-restrictive clause and hence provides information that is NOT essential
to the meaning of the sentence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 10:52:28 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Magus wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Magus wrote:
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
"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
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.
If you think a subordinating clause doesn't modify, restrict, or
otherwise
influence an independent clause you're truly twisted.
Does a subordinating clause Modify, yes; Influence, yes; Restrict, no.
Care give to take another shot and explain how the subordinating
clause
takes precedence over the independent clause?
Here's a reference you can use:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/UofC/eduweb/grammar/course/punctuation/3_4c.htm
What is a restrictive clause?
A restrictive clause provides essential information about the subject
of a
sentence:
it restricts the meaning of a sentence by identifying the specific
qualities of the
noun or pronoun.
...
You may sit down now.
And you may not look at your OWN cite and note the following.
"Non-restrictive clauses provide descriptive information that isn't
essential to the meaning of the sentence."
Since the dependent clause in the 2nd is a non-restrictive clause it's
information is not essential to the meaning of the sentence. That fact
that
There you go again. Why are those words about the militia there if they're
NOT
essential to the meaning of the sentence???
Because they add non-essential descriptive information. Duh. That is after
all what a non-restrictive clause does.
Here we go again. If "a well regulated militia" is non essential, THEN WHY
IS IT IN THERE????
clause is non-restrictive can be easily established by the fact that it
does
not identify specific qualities about the nouns or pronouns in the main
clause.
As such your OWN source shoots down your assertion that the 2nd is
limited
by the subordinate clause which your OWN source indicates would be a
non-restrictive clause and hence provides information that is NOT
essential
to the meaning of the sentence.
That's it? Asking a stupid question which is already addressed and answered
by your own source? That is your rebuttal?
ROFL. You really have ridden your argument right into the ground, haven't
you? Nothing left but repeating your silly question which has already been
asked and answered multiple times.
It also shows you don't bother to read and absorb the information in your
own sources.
Uh, dude, you're responding to something YOU wrote...
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
26 Dec 2006 11:29:58 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"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. So what's
your point?
Then why is the word militia in there????
From Miller:
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide
for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must
be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 06:00:44 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:459204D6.89E7CC51@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"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. So what's
your point?
Then why is the word militia in there????
Asked and answered. Multiple times.
Now why don't you tell me why the word people is in there?
Why can't you show me the grammatical structure that allows the word people
to be limited to the word militia?
Why is it you can't support your points, claims, assertions and arguments
with the actual text of the 2nd?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:34:50 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"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. So what's
your point?
Then why is the word militia in there????
Asked and answered. Multiple times.
Because I "quoted them" doesn't count...
Now why don't you tell me why the word people is in there?
Easy. You don't know? The militia is composed of a subset of the people - it has
to be composed of something.
Why can't you show me the grammatical structure that allows the word people
to be limited to the word militia?
Isn't the 2nd itself good enough for you?
Why is it you can't support your points, claims, assertions and arguments
with the actual text of the 2nd?
I have more than once, such as when I posted about the word "because" implied
in front.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:01:46 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599A8AA.D9A65B2F@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
"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. So
what's
your point?
Then why is the word militia in there????
Asked and answered. Multiple times.
Because I "quoted them" doesn't count...
Well since you quoted my responses then clearly you were aware of them and I
fail to see why you continue to ask a question to which you have already
been provided the answer on multple occassions. Do you think the answer is
going to suddenly change if you ask enough times?
Do you think by repeatedly asking the same question to which you have
already been given the answer is somehow going to bolster your failing
arguement?
Now why don't you tell me why the word people is in there?
Easy. You don't know?
I know, I seek to see if you do.
The militia is composed of a subset of the people - it has
to be composed of something.
So it is your contention that "the people" appears simply because they are
the source of the militia?
Why can't you show me the grammatical structure that allows the word
people
to be limited to the word militia?
Isn't the 2nd itself good enough for you?
Certainly it's good enough, if it did what you assert it did, and which you
have yet to show does.
Why is it you can't support your points, claims, assertions and arguments
with the actual text of the 2nd?
I have more than once, such as when I posted about the word "because"
implied
in front.
That doesn't work since "because" does not appear in the 2nd and you can
just add words to suit yourself. Either you can work with what is there, or
you can't.
Further adding the word "because" still does NOT impose the condition you
claim exists in the 2nd, specifically that the right and the protection is
limited to just the militia.
.
|
|
| | | | |
