[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Sorry, that won’t fly. It says “necessary to the security of a free state.” i.e. you can’t have a, meaning any, free state without w-r-militias.
Nobody can rationally argue that the proposition is true. What were the bozos up to that evening?
I’ll say a little prayer here that there won’t be a need to link to a definition of the indefinite article.
[/QUOTE]
They were writing in a different time. I have no doubt that this seemed perfectly reasonable to Americans in a time when our problems with the British were recent history. It doesn`t hold up today, though.
[QUOTE=Coin]
They were writing in a different time. I have no doubt that this seemed perfectly reasonable to Americans in a time when our problems with the British were recent history.
[/QUOTE]
Look, I was a little harsh there where it really wasn’t merited, but I’d like to elaborate on this next bit:
[QUOTE=Coin]
It doesn`t hold up today, though.
[/QUOTE]
Quite.
So here’s the question: Why the difficulty in finding the second clause of the 2-A sentence to be similarly antiquated?
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
So here’s the question: Why the difficulty in finding the second clause of the 2-A sentence to be similarly antiquated?
[/QUOTE]
Because we are a democracy, and there isn’t enough political capital to overturn a constitutional amendment. A lot of Americans love their firearms; you can see some representatives in this thread. Too many to get the super-majority necessary to amend the constitution.
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
Because we are a democracy, and there isn’t enough political capital to overturn a constitutional amendment. A lot of Americans love their firearms; you can see some representatives in this thread. Too many to get the super-majority necessary to amend the constitution.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, the fallacy of undesirable consequences:
‘We cannot admit the clause is obsolete, because gun control laws might then pass.’
Would you say that is a fair characterisation?
Might Crafter-Man have something to say on this point?
[QUOTE=Coin]
They were writing in a different time. I have no doubt that this seemed perfectly reasonable to Americans in a time when our problems with the British were recent history. It doesn`t hold up today, though.
[/QUOTE]
Was it General Tojo or Admiral Yamamoto who said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass”?
No regular army is giving the US and British military problems in Iraq right now, but even a poorly organized “militia” is driving us mad, and there are at least 230,000,000 guns in the hands of private persons in this country. Probably not so many RPG’s as the Iraqi’s have.
[QUOTE=silenus]
The clause is by no means obsolete, so your argument fails from the start.
[/QUOTE]
No, you are quite wrong.
If you review, you’ll note that Coin and I agreed the first clause of the 2-A is obsolete.
Now it is the leading, or dominant clause. So the question is: Why is there a difficulty in viewing the following, or subordinate clause as also being obsolete?
Take: ‘No animals breathe air, so life will cannot be made to live on land’. This is a sentence put together the same way, in all relevant respects.
So, given that the logic of the 2-A is seriously and plainly flawed, why the attachment to it? So far, the only answer is a response that fits within the fallacy of undesirable consequences.