| 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: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 09:30:29 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45A1C955.7EBEEB56@hotmMOVEail.com:
But not from state governments.
Your strawman, you feed him. I never claimed it was....at least
by the Second Amendment. It is protected from state action by the
state constitutions and statutes and the USSC.
What strawman?
The discussion was federal and your continued posting of a cite from
the Miller Court that you don't understand the context of.
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.
It's pretty clear the context is the militia.
No, it is pretty clear that you have not read much of anything about the
2A other than one cite from Miller. I don't think you have even read the
case itself. It shows.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Jan 2007 09:46:10 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
But not from state governments.
Your strawman, you feed him. I never claimed it was....at least
by the Second Amendment. It is protected from state action by the
state constitutions and statutes and the USSC.
What strawman?
The discussion was federal and your continued posting of a cite from
the Miller Court that you don't understand the context of.
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.
It's pretty clear the context is the militia.
No, it is pretty clear that you have not read much of anything about the
2A other than one cite from Miller. I don't think you have even read the
case itself. It shows.
It's pretty clear you choose to ignore that excerpt from Miller since it
conflicts with your preconceived notions...
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatto von Aquitanien" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
02 Jan 2007 12:44:16 PM |
|
|
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps you should
read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
--
Nil conscire sibi
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
02 Jan 2007 01:02:26 PM |
|
|
Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in
news:OYOdncdX6p2dNQfYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps you
should read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
Bingo!! There is protection for those rights, however.
--
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: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
02 Jan 2007 05:36:21 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in
news:OYOdncdX6p2dNQfYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps you
should read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
Bingo!! There is protection for those rights, however.
When people say that rights are granted by the Constitution, it depends
on which definition of "grant" is appropriate.
The Constitution does grant (acknowledge/admit as true) rights, it
doesn't grant (give/gift) rights.
I grant that people are confused on this issue, but I can't grant them
understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
03 Jan 2007 05:28:04 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:XZBmh.18321$h_1.559
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in
news:OYOdncdX6p2dNQfYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps you
should read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
Bingo!! There is protection for those rights, however.
When people say that rights are granted by the Constitution, it depends
on which definition of "grant" is appropriate.
The Constitution does grant (acknowledge/admit as true) rights, it
doesn't grant (give/gift) rights.
I grant that people are confused on this issue, but I can't grant them
understanding.
;) One reason why I prefer to state that the Second Amendment, for
example, protects the right to keep and bear arms from the federal
government.
And that just burns the anti-freedom liberal *****.
Rights of the people should be read broadly and powers of government
should be read narrowly--something those in power are loath to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
04 Jan 2007 10:55:21 AM |
|
|
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in
news:9YWmh.39630$3v6.12059@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:XZBmh.18321$h_1.559
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in
news:OYOdncdX6p2dNQfYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps
you should read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
Bingo!! There is protection for those rights, however.
When people say that rights are granted by the Constitution, it
depends on which definition of "grant" is appropriate.
The Constitution does grant (acknowledge/admit as true) rights, it
doesn't grant (give/gift) rights.
I grant that people are confused on this issue, but I can't grant
them understanding.
;) One reason why I prefer to state that the Second Amendment, for
example, protects the right to keep and bear arms from the federal
government.
And that just burns the anti-freedom liberal *****.
Rights of the people should be read broadly and powers of government
should be read narrowly--something those in power are loath to do.
Something some in here, (Leif and Weasel come to mind) are also loath to
do.
--
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: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
04 Jan 2007 05:14:56 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in
news:9YWmh.39630$3v6.12059@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:XZBmh.18321$h_1.559
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in
news:OYOdncdX6p2dNQfYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps
you should read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
Bingo!! There is protection for those rights, however.
When people say that rights are granted by the Constitution, it
depends on which definition of "grant" is appropriate.
The Constitution does grant (acknowledge/admit as true) rights, it
doesn't grant (give/gift) rights.
I grant that people are confused on this issue, but I can't grant
them understanding.
;) One reason why I prefer to state that the Second Amendment, for
example, protects the right to keep and bear arms from the federal
government.
And that just burns the anti-freedom liberal *****.
Rights of the people should be read broadly and powers of government
should be read narrowly--something those in power are loath to do.
Something some in here, (Leif and Weasel come to mind) are also loath to
do.
Yep RD, but I'll give Leif his due... his posts are intelligent and
articulate and I don't believe I've ever seen him be intentionally
dishonest. I also don't remember him doing any name calling because he
disagreed with someone. The same can not be said about Weasel.
I don't mean to come across as if I'm illy-white in those regards, but
I've never instigated name-calling and I never use deceit/dishonesty in
my posts (mistakes sure, but I will/have admit[ed] when that happens.)
I don't agree with Leif's stance on the Second Amendment with regards to
it including an individual right protection but that's why we're
here--to talk the politics of guns. His posts are biased in a
rights-restrictive point of view--but hell, my posts are extremely
biased in a rights-permissive perspective. We all have our biases.
I maintain a presumption of liberty unless there's a very damn good
reason for restriction--to me, Leif comes across as a _it's forbidden
unless there's a reason to permit it_ type.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
05 Jan 2007 03:08:00 PM |
|
|
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in
news:PRfnh.24276$%e7.14923@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in
news:9YWmh.39630$3v6.12059@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in news:XZBmh.18321$h_1.559
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Hatto von Aquitanien <abbot@AugiaDives.hre> wrote in
news:OYOdncdX6p2dNQfYnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@speakeasy.net:
The Sandman wrote:
If you think that RKBA comes from the Second Amendment, perhaps
you should read it.
There are no rights which come from the Constitution.
Bingo!! There is protection for those rights, however.
When people say that rights are granted by the Constitution, it
depends on which definition of "grant" is appropriate.
The Constitution does grant (acknowledge/admit as true) rights, it
doesn't grant (give/gift) rights.
I grant that people are confused on this issue, but I can't grant
them understanding.
;) One reason why I prefer to state that the Second Amendment,
for example, protects the right to keep and bear arms from the
federal government.
And that just burns the anti-freedom liberal *****.
Rights of the people should be read broadly and powers of government
should be read narrowly--something those in power are loath to do.
Something some in here, (Leif and Weasel come to mind) are also loath
to do.
Yep RD, but I'll give Leif his due... his posts are intelligent and
articulate and I don't believe I've ever seen him be intentionally
dishonest. I also don't remember him doing any name calling because he
disagreed with someone. The same can not be said about Weasel.
Very true. He seems to come across quite well (except for an occasional
statement) as being neutral. I disagree with some of his interpretations
but those, at least, are honest ones.
I don't mean to come across as if I'm illy-white in those regards, but
I've never instigated name-calling and I never use deceit/dishonesty
in my posts (mistakes sure, but I will/have admit[ed] when that
happens.)
I am definitely not lilly white there either. I do tend to stay above
that, but when the other party does not treat me with respect, I have a
tendency (shame on me) to do the same in reverse. Lief has always
treated me with respect. One reason I respond to him and not to Weasel.
I don't agree with Leif's stance on the Second Amendment with regards
to it including an individual right protection but that's why we're
here--to talk the politics of guns. His posts are biased in a
rights-restrictive point of view--but hell, my posts are extremely
biased in a rights-permissive perspective. We all have our biases.
I maintain a presumption of liberty unless there's a very damn good
reason for restriction--to me, Leif comes across as a _it's forbidden
unless there's a reason to permit it_ type.
Agreed. I respect him......hell, I even respected that dude who was
running for office on the green party (can't pull his name out of my butt
right now) but didn't like to read tomes *E..V..E..R..Y* time he posted.
Weasel I can't say that about. Some of his cites didn't even agree with
his claim.
--
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: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Dec 2006 12:19:06 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Dec 2006 11:48:56 AM |
|
|
Magus <nope@noway.net> wrote in
news:xoejh.7921$U12.7501@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
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.
Correct.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Probably.
--
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: "R Sweeney" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
24 Dec 2006 12:55:44 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
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.
Correct.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Probably.
Which was precisely the argument that Hamilton made against a militia, he
said that AT BEST, over time it would do little to defend the nation, except
have a large number of citizens with their own arms and familiarity with
shooting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 12:03:11 AM |
|
|
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 06:04:59 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45920C9F.C28AEE84@hotmMOVEail.com...
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:39:23 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:29:38 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599A9BB.19641FA4@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
Cite please where USSC states that RKBA depends upon the militia and exists
only for the militia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:49:22 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
Cite please where USSC states that RKBA depends upon the militia and exists
only for the militia.
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? |
02 Jan 2007 11:43:16 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4599A9BB.19641FA4@hotmMOVEail.com:
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
And just where does the USSC state that?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 10:17:58 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4599A9BB.19641FA4@hotmMOVEail.com:
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
And just where does the USSC state that?
Miller.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 09:23:37 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45A1C5F6.482045EE@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4599A9BB.19641FA4@hotmMOVEail.com:
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
And just where does the USSC state that?
Miller.
No, it doesn't. You don't even know the context of Miller or what it was
about.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Jan 2007 09:36:08 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
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.
Says the man who thinks the right to arms depends on the militia.
As well as the USSC.
And just where does the USSC state that?
Miller.
No, it doesn't. You don't even know the context of Miller or what it was
about.
Yes, it does, where it says "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in
view"
and proceeds to give several examples...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
28 Dec 2006 11:21:30 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45920C9F.C28AEE84@hotmMOVEail.com:
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a requirement to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:57:32 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a requirement to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 07:40:21 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599ADFC.C0C59A2D@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a requirement to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so, and that right
would be protected by the 2nd.
I think we're making progress but I expect you to suffer a mental failure
shortly after you realize that RKBA does not depend upon the militia to
exist or be protected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:58:56 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599ADFC.C0C59A2D@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid answering
why the words "well regulated militia" are in the amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would cease to
exist. As structured where people were to report, when called,
bearing their own arms that militia couldn't function on its own
without the right of the people to have those arms. That is the
reason that right is protected from the actions of the central
government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but since
the militia is subordinate to the right, the right doesn't cease to
exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of arms
but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a requirement to
maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so, and that right
would be protected by the 2nd.
Nope, no militia, the right evaporates. Context, context...
I think we're making progress but I expect you to suffer a mental failure
shortly after you realize that RKBA does not depend upon the militia to
exist or be protected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
08 Jan 2007 09:15:56 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45A1C180.A338CF5F@hotmMOVEail.com:
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599ADFC.C0C59A2D@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Magus wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CB100.52FD051B@hotmMOVEail.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Out of context.
That IS the context.
Incorrect.
Then why are the words there?
Well?
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Does this mean the right to read books
only applies to the "well-schooled electorate"?
Apples. Oranges.
The structures are identical. Now, answer the
question.
They're not identical in *meaning*.
Of course not, one discusses guns the other, books.
But they are identical in parsing to determine that
meaning.
You are falling back on structure in order to avoid
answering why the words "well regulated militia" are in the
amendment.
Reading had nothing to do the security of the state.
And the right of the people has nothing to do with the
militia.
Actually it does. Without that right, the militia would
cease to exist. As structured where people were to report,
when called, bearing their own arms that militia couldn't
function on its own without the right of the people to have
those arms. That is the reason that right is protected from
the actions of the central government.
The militia ceases to exist without the referenced right, but
since the militia is subordinate to the right, the right
doesn't cease to exist without a militia.
The militia may also fade away if the people have the right of
arms but fail to exercise/maintain it.
Which is a completely backwards reading of the English used.
Nope. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
requirement to maintain a state militia as noted in those times.
So, no militia, no need to keep and bear arms. Thanks!
However, the people would still have the right to do so, and that
right would be protected by the 2nd.
Nope, no militia, the right evaporates. Context, context...
Not at all. The right to keep and bear arms does NOT come from the
Constitution and, IIRC, that would include the 2A.
--
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
.
|
|
| | | | | | | |
