| 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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 05:57:39 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4592029A.A5CAA21A@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout 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
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?
Because you quoted them.
Happy?
Didn't think you knew.
"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*.
No, they aren't. Because on is about arms and the other is about
books.
Very good. You're learning.
Yep, I'm learning you can't defend your position, your arugments or your
claims.
Sez the guy who goes " Because you quoted them" as an argument...
You asked why it was there, and that's why it was. If you hadn't qouted it
then it wouldn't have been there.
QED.
hence the meaning is different. The structure, however, is identical
and
thus the sentences would function exactly in the same manner.
No, because one has a coherent meaning or thought expressed and the
other
is
nonsense.
IOW, you can't refute the point being presented.
Your idea of a point: " Because you quoted them"
See above.
Noted when you can't address the point you attempt to divert attention to
another subject.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:28:13 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout 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
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?
Because you quoted them.
Happy?
Didn't think you knew.
"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*.
No, they aren't. Because on is about arms and the other is about
books.
Very good. You're learning.
Yep, I'm learning you can't defend your position, your arugments or your
claims.
Sez the guy who goes " Because you quoted them" as an argument...
You asked why it was there, and that's why it was. If you hadn't qouted it
then it wouldn't have been there.
QED.
You're really floundering here, aren't you? Now, again, why is
"A well regulated militia" in the 2nd?
hence the meaning is different. The structure, however, is identical
and
thus the sentences would function exactly in the same manner.
No, because one has a coherent meaning or thought expressed and the
other
is
nonsense.
IOW, you can't refute the point being presented.
Your idea of a point: " Because you quoted them"
See above.
Noted when you can't address the point you attempt to divert attention to
another subject.
You mean like you're floundering?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:45:47 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599A71D.866AB3C9@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout 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
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?
Because you quoted them.
Happy?
Didn't think you knew.
"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*.
No, they aren't. Because on is about arms and the other is about
books.
Very good. You're learning.
Yep, I'm learning you can't defend your position, your arugments or
your
claims.
Sez the guy who goes " Because you quoted them" as an argument...
You asked why it was there, and that's why it was. If you hadn't qouted
it
then it wouldn't have been there.
QED.
You're really floundering here, aren't you? Now, again, why is
"A well regulated militia" in the 2nd?
Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:19:51 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout 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
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?
Because you quoted them.
Happy?
Didn't think you knew.
"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*.
No, they aren't. Because on is about arms and the other is about
books.
Very good. You're learning.
Yep, I'm learning you can't defend your position, your arugments or
your
claims.
Sez the guy who goes " Because you quoted them" as an argument...
You asked why it was there, and that's why it was. If you hadn't qouted
it
then it wouldn't have been there.
QED.
You're really floundering here, aren't you? Now, again, why is
"A well regulated militia" in the 2nd?
Asked and answered. Repeatedly.
"because you quoted it" - riiiight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
19 Dec 2006 07:57:35 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4587636B.46FB788E@hotmMOVEail.com...
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
"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 the meanings are different. The subject
is different. However, the structure is identical.
Now, answer the question, without another
artful dodge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
22 Dec 2006 10:23:52 PM |
|
|
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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
"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 the meanings are different. The subject
is different. However, the structure is identical.
Now, answer the question, without another
artful dodge.
I did answer: They're not identical in *meaning*
The structure is your dodge.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Dec 2006 08:47:58 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CAF58.86F9C770@hotmMOVEail.com...
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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
You quoted only part of the second amendment,
which made your quote out of context. It appears
you are now getting desparate.
"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 the meanings are different. The subject
is different. However, the structure is identical.
Now, answer the question, without another
artful dodge.
I did answer: They're not identical in *meaning*
That doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it
for you:
"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."
And the question is ...
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
The structure is your dodge.
When you reference "meaning" differences
you are dodging the question asked. Just
answer the question, if you have the courage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
26 Dec 2006 11:36:38 PM |
|
|
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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
You quoted only part of the second amendment,
which made your quote out of context. It appears
you are now getting desparate.
I quoted the context. The USSC sees it that way too. (Miller)
"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 the meanings are different. The subject
is different. However, the structure is identical.
Now, answer the question, without another
artful dodge.
I did answer: They're not identical in *meaning*
That doesn't answer the question. I'll repeat it
for you:
Sorry if it's over your head. I can't help that.
"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."
And the question is ...
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
It means you've constructed a non sequitur. What would books and schooling
have to do with state security? "It appears you are now getting desparate."
The structure is your dodge.
When you reference "meaning" differences
you are dodging the question asked. Just
answer the question, if you have the courage.
So, you don't think words have meaning? There's your problem.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 07:01:56 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45920666.11B6EA1C@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"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."
And the question is ...
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
It means you've constructed a non sequitur. What would books and schooling
have to do with state security? "It appears you are now getting
desparate."
It is obvious that answering that particular question
brings you pain, which is understandable when you
attempt to support an unsupportable position. I'll
stop asking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:41:52 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"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."
And the question is ...
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
It means you've constructed a non sequitur. What would books and schooling
have to do with state security? "It appears you are now getting
desparate."
It is obvious that answering that particular question
brings you pain, which is understandable when you
attempt to support an unsupportable position. I'll
stop asking.
It is obvious the shooting down (pardon the pun) of your strawman brings you
pain, which is understandable when you attempt to support an unsupportable position.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 07:01:56 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45920666.11B6EA1C@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"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."
And the question is ...
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
It means you've constructed a non sequitur. What would books and schooling
have to do with state security? "It appears you are now getting
desparate."
It is obvious that answering that particular question
brings you pain, which is understandable when you
attempt to support an unsupportable position. I'll
stop asking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 07:01:56 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45920666.11B6EA1C@hotmMOVEail.com...
Bob wrote:
"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."
And the question is ...
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
It means you've constructed a non sequitur. What would books and schooling
have to do with state security? "It appears you are now getting
desparate."
It is obvious that answering that particular question
brings you pain, which is understandable when you
attempt to support an unsupportable position. I'll
stop asking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 06:01:29 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45920666.11B6EA1C@hotmMOVEail.com...
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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
You quoted only part of the second amendment,
which made your quote out of context. It appears
you are now getting desparate.
I quoted the context. The USSC sees it that way too. (Miller)
No, you quoted a phrase. That isn't the context, nor is it by itself in
context.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:35:50 PM |
|
|
Scout 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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
You quoted only part of the second amendment,
which made your quote out of context. It appears
you are now getting desparate.
I quoted the context. The USSC sees it that way too. (Miller)
No, you quoted a phrase. That isn't the context, nor is it by itself in
context.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Militia provides the justification for the following right. Easy. Now see Miller...
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:03:40 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599A8E6.B2F0EE4F@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout 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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
You quoted only part of the second amendment,
which made your quote out of context. It appears
you are now getting desparate.
I quoted the context. The USSC sees it that way too. (Miller)
No, you quoted a phrase. That isn't the context, nor is it by itself in
context.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Militia provides the justification for the following right. Easy. Now see
Miller...
So explain to me how that 'justification' limits the right and it's
protection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:36:22 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout 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
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?
You quoted only part of the sentence, which
made your quote "out of context". The words
are there to show one of the important purposes.
The context is not considered to be out of context!
You quoted only part of the second amendment,
which made your quote out of context. It appears
you are now getting desparate.
I quoted the context. The USSC sees it that way too. (Miller)
No, you quoted a phrase. That isn't the context, nor is it by itself in
context.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Militia provides the justification for the following right. Easy. Now see
Miller...
So explain to me how that 'justification' limits the right and it's
protection.
Again? The militia is a subset of the people. From Miller
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: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
19 Dec 2006 10:39:30 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4587636B.46FB788E@hotmMOVEail.com:
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?
"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.
--
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? |
22 Dec 2006 10:30:56 PM |
|
|
"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.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
22 Dec 2006 11:05:22 PM |
|
|
"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. So what's
your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Dec 2006 11:18:13 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:5OidnUDQP4iNJBHYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@adelphia.com:
"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.
--
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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Dec 2006 01:55:43 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98A268D1BE526Sandman@216.196.97.136...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:5OidnUDQP4iNJBHYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@adelphia.com:
"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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse. While
the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of the people
does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine whether we have a
militia or not. As such the right of the people is utterly independent of
the militia and has NOTHING to do with it. Though the militia does depend
upon this right in order to exist as an effective force. Just because the
militia has a dependency does not mean that the right does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Dec 2006 11:51:01 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:6LCdnQyZiIQkFBDYnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@adelphia.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98A268D1BE526Sandman@216.196.97.136...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:5OidnUDQP4iNJBHYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@adelphia.com:
"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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse.
Nope, I am saying that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of
the militia but that militia cannot exist without that right to keep and
bear.
While the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of
the people does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine
whether we have a militia or not.
Yep. I realize that I wasn't clear on that in *this particular* post,
but it was stated by me in other posts within this thread and others.
As such the right of the people is
utterly independent of the militia and has NOTHING to do with it.
Yep.
Though the militia does depend upon this right in order to exist as an
effective force. Just because the militia has a dependency does not
mean that the right does.
Bingo!
--
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 Dec 2006 12:05:02 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98A268D1BE526Sandman@216.196.97.136...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:5OidnUDQP4iNJBHYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@adelphia.com:
"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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse. While
the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of the people
does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine whether we have a
See Lone Weasel's post about the Latin grammar used.
Read
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
as
BECAUSE A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
militia or not. As such the right of the people is utterly independent of
the militia and has NOTHING to do with it. Though the militia does depend
upon this right in order to exist as an effective force. Just because the
militia has a dependency does not mean that the right does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 06:06:32 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45920D0E.FDB0DC64@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98A268D1BE526Sandman@216.196.97.136...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:5OidnUDQP4iNJBHYnZ2dnUVZ_tCtnZ2d@adelphia.com:
"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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse.
While
the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of the people
does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine whether we have
a
See Lone Weasel's post about the Latin grammar used.
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment isn't written in Latin and as such Latin
grammar has nothing to do with the 2nd.
Read
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
as
BECAUSE A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok. It's a reason. Doesn't make it a limitation, restriction, condition, or
requirement of the right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:40:54 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
"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 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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse.
While
the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of the people
does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine whether we have
a
See Lone Weasel's post about the Latin grammar used.
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment isn't written in Latin and as such Latin
grammar has nothing to do with the 2nd.
Sigh. A weak dodge, even for you. It doesn't have to be IN Latin, dum dum.
Read
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
as
BECAUSE A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok. It's a reason. Doesn't make it a limitation, restriction, condition, or
requirement of the right.
Well, duh, it most certainly does make it those things.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:32:25 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599AA16.73E2366D@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
"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
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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse.
While
the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of the
people
does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine whether we
have
a
See Lone Weasel's post about the Latin grammar used.
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment isn't written in Latin and as such Latin
grammar has nothing to do with the 2nd.
Sigh. A weak dodge, even for you. It doesn't have to be IN Latin, dum dum.
Well it would need to be in Latin or some latin derived langauge in order
for it to apply, and let me give you a free hint, English isn't a latin
derived language and hence latin grammar doesn't mean squat.
Read
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
as
BECAUSE A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok. It's a reason. Doesn't make it a limitation, restriction, condition,
or
requirement of the right.
Well, duh, it most certainly does make it those things.
If you could ever get around to showing the exactly language that does so
and exactly how that language does so under the standard rules of English
usage, composition, and grammar, then you might have a point. Until then all
I see is your endlessly repeated unsupported assertion. Almost seems a
mantra to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:55:57 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in message
"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
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.
I see what you're saying, however, you have the cart before the horse.
While
the militia depends upon the right of the people, the right of the
people
does NOT depend on the militia and it can exist just fine whether we
have
a
See Lone Weasel's post about the Latin grammar used.
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment isn't written in Latin and as such Latin
grammar has nothing to do with the 2nd.
Sigh. A weak dodge, even for you. It doesn't have to be IN Latin, dum dum.
Well it would need to be in Latin or some latin derived langauge in order
Uh, no, it w | | | | | | | | | | |
