|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 9:12:23 GMT -5
You claim that the 2A "is not set in stone", and that because it owes much to laws or philosophy from other countries, it's somehow less than the law of the land. That would indicate that you don't think all of the Constitution should be obeyed.Kind of like you think that the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." bit of the 2A should be disregarded and ignored, eh? Not at all. That phrase has no bearing at all on the operative phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You would understand that if you understood English.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 9:16:17 GMT -5
Kind of like you think that the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." bit of the 2A should be disregarded and ignored, eh? Ever wonder just "why" those words were put into the Second Amendment?... had they not meant something significant, they wouldn't have been there, would they?... there had to be some reason, right?... I wonder if Redleg knows that reason... Obviously you don't. The "militia" is made up of "the whole of the population, when physically capable, and when not excused by age or infirmity". Each member of the militia is expected to bring his own arms and accoutrements, which means he must have the right to own those arms and accoutrements. However, you also exhibit your ignorance of the English language, since you seem to think that the "well regulated militia" is the operative phrase. It's not. If the first phrase were "I like peanut butter", it would change the meaning of the operative phrase not a whit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 10:42:33 GMT -5
Kind of like you think that the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." bit of the 2A should be disregarded and ignored, eh? Not at all. That phrase has no bearing at all on the operative phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You would understand that if you understood English. Because I understand English, clearly much better than you do, I know that the two phrases can not be divorced from one another. One can debate what the connection between them is but one cannot make the somewhat ignorant statement "That phrase has no bearing at all on the operative phrase ", that clearly demonstrates that it is you that does not understand English, not I.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 10:45:35 GMT -5
Ever wonder just "why" those words were put into the Second Amendment?... had they not meant something significant, they wouldn't have been there, would they?... there had to be some reason, right?... I wonder if Redleg knows that reason... Obviously you don't. The "militia" is made up of "the whole of the population, when physically capable, and when not excused by age or infirmity". Each member of the militia is expected to bring his own arms and accoutrements, which means he must have the right to own those arms and accoutrements. However, you also exhibit your ignorance of the English language, since you seem to think that the "well regulated militia" is the operative phrase. It's not. If the first phrase were "I like peanut butter", it would change the meaning of the operative phrase not a whit.Are you trying to win a stupidity competition? I'll mark you 10/10.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 12:06:50 GMT -5
Not at all. That phrase has no bearing at all on the operative phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You would understand that if you understood English. Because I understand English, clearly much better than you do, I know that the two phrases can not be divorced from one another. One can debate what the connection between them is but one cannot make the somewhat ignorant statement "That phrase has no bearing at all on the operative phrase ", that clearly demonstrates that it is you that does not understand English, not I. The only 'bearing' it has on the operative statement is an explanation of the reasoning for the operative statement. Were it not there at all, the operative statement would still stand. If it were changed to "because snow is cold", the operative statement would still stand. Regardless of the reason for it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That is the part of the statement that is law, and therefore inviolable.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 12:07:57 GMT -5
Obviously you don't. The "militia" is made up of "the whole of the population, when physically capable, and when not excused by age or infirmity". Each member of the militia is expected to bring his own arms and accoutrements, which means he must have the right to own those arms and accoutrements. However, you also exhibit your ignorance of the English language, since you seem to think that the "well regulated militia" is the operative phrase. It's not. If the first phrase were "I like peanut butter", it would change the meaning of the operative phrase not a whit.Are you trying to win a stupidity competition? I'll mark you 10/10. So you ARE illiterate. Just as I thought. You obviously don't understand the difference between a declarative phrase and an operative phrase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 12:46:44 GMT -5
Are you trying to win a stupidity competition? I'll mark you 10/10. So you ARE illiterate. Just as I thought. You obviously don't understand the difference between a declarative phrase and an operative phrase.
I have told you before that I understand and comprehend English much better than you do, even so, I would not call you illiterate that would make me as ignorant as your post. Your declarative phrase/operative phrase sizzle isn't even yours, I've seen it many times in the 2A argument, so many times in fact that I believe that it is an NRA cheat sheet soundbite. If you call me illiterate again, I will report you
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on May 29, 2015 13:12:22 GMT -5
So you ARE illiterate. Just as I thought. You obviously don't understand the difference between a declarative phrase and an operative phrase.
I have told you before that I understand and comprehend English much better than you do, even so, I would not call you illiterate that would make me as ignorant as your post. Your declarative phrase/operative phrase sizzle isn't even yours, I've seen it many times in the 2A argument, so many times in fact that I believe that it is an NRA cheat sheet soundbite. If you call me illiterate again, I will report you It seems the term "well regulated" is the one most misunderstood by people who think the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says. I do believe the intent by the framers of the Bill of Rights of the meaning of "regulated" is the same as is in common use in the U.K., today, in the sense of smooth-functioning (such as a well-regulated clock) and operating properly as intended (the Brit WW2 Hurricanes and Spitfires were frequently "regulated" so their machine guns shot where they were aimed). Indeed, in a visit to the fine gunmaker house (Purdey) you'll hear them talk about hand regulating their fine double barrel shotguns (both side by side and over/under), i.e., when they talk about regulating they won't be talking about the red tape the Brits have to go through just to hunt. Thus a well regulated militia is a group of men who know how to shoot straight and efficiently (i.e., can reload, quickly, and continue the fight) and know how to follow orders, rather than an unorganized mob shooting in any random direction.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 13:18:42 GMT -5
So you ARE illiterate. Just as I thought. You obviously don't understand the difference between a declarative phrase and an operative phrase.
I have told you before that I understand and comprehend English much better than you do, even so, I would not call you illiterate that would make me as ignorant as your post. Your declarative phrase/operative phrase sizzle isn't even yours, I've seen it many times in the 2A argument, so many times in fact that I believe that it is an NRA cheat sheet soundbite. If you call me illiterate again, I will report you Then you are simply trolling when you claim not to understand the difference. Or the amendment. And you want those of us in the US to become serfs just as you Brits have become. Voluntarily.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on May 29, 2015 13:19:47 GMT -5
I have told you before that I understand and comprehend English much better than you do, even so, I would not call you illiterate that would make me as ignorant as your post. Your declarative phrase/operative phrase sizzle isn't even yours, I've seen it many times in the 2A argument, so many times in fact that I believe that it is an NRA cheat sheet soundbite. If you call me illiterate again, I will report you It seems the term "well regulated" is the one most misunderstood by people who think the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says. I do believe the intent by the framers of the Bill of Rights of the meaning of "regulated" is the same as is in common use in the U.K., today, in the sense of smooth-functioning (such as a well-regulated clock) and operating properly as intended (the Brit WW2 Hurricanes and Spitfires were frequently "regulated" so their machine guns shot where they were aimed). Indeed, in a visit to the fine gunmaker house (Purdey) you'll hear them talk about hand regulating their fine double barrel shotguns (both side by side and over/under), i.e., when they talk about regulating they won't be talking about the red tape the Brits have to go through just to hunt. Thus a well regulated militia is a group of men who know how to shoot straight and efficiently (i.e., can reload, quickly, and continue the fight) and know how to follow orders, rather than an unorganized mob shooting in any random direction. The term "regulated" in the 2A means 'having the proper equipment, and being trained to use it'. As is stated in the Federalist papers.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 29, 2015 13:38:41 GMT -5
This thread is locked. It has veered hopelessly off course. Those who wish to debate the Second Amendment or the relative contributions of Allied WWII co-belligerents are welcome to start threads dedicated to those topics. Those who wish to debate whether Hillary committed a crime can start a new thread, but keep it on topic. Thank you.
|
|