stofsky wrote:
I’ll have you know that I’m a **pro-**abortion, gun nut, race-neutral, nonpartisan atheist!
ArchiveGuy
Thanks for expanding my understanding of his research. I would be interested in knowing more about his neutrality on this issue prior to this book. My understanding is that this book has a blatant political agenda.
Anybody want to find out where he lives and go interview his neighbors for us?
**BlackKnight
**
I think I understood Ex-Tank to be talking about your understanding of the militia when he talked about you being an American. If you live in Japan, then your first statement about not knowing you were regarded as part of the Militia would be ridiculous.
Please pardon my rationalization for not looking around for a link. Damn!!! That is twice in this thread that I have done that.
Good question. The meaning has not changed.
Here is a good source to read about THIS.
(stofsky, why don’t you take a look as well?)
**SPOOFE Bo Diddly
**
I’m soooo happy that I have been behaving myself:)
This is precisely why I try to stay out of these debates. I should have quit with a quiet hijack.
The simple predicate in the Amendment is “be.” Shall, not, and infringed are not predicates in that sentence, but rather part of the predicate phrase.
Ryan, reread that. It is a complete sentence:
As to the charge of racism, I won’t even answer that ridiculous charge except to say that I was pointing out the evolution of other aspects of con-law from the intent and ideas of the framers.
I now return you to your previously scheduled Charlton Heston film festival.
Those “other aspects of con law” were changed by things like the Fourteenth Ammendment, which is a legally valid way of changing the effect of a part of the Constitution. When you get an ammendment passed to change the Second Ammendment, your analogy will be valid. Regardless of what the framers intended, women and blacks are recognized by the Constitution as having all rights that are guaranteed by it.
It wasn’t a part of the natural evolution of ideas, but a specific legal change to the document. Either way, however, while the framers may not have necessarily intended women or blacks on non-landowners to be included as people, it doesn’t specifically say that. It does specifically say that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s not an implied statement, or something that was inferred from the intent of the framers, but a direct and legally binding quote.
So many non-sequiters!
Consider the following sentence:
“Because it is important for me to express my opinion, I think that Americans should have unlimited right to Free Speech.”
Please deconstruct this sentence to show that I believe that only I should have the right to Free Speech, and I’ll give you a prize.
Now the sentence:
“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.”
is similarly constructed. “Grammar” arguments are so much fluff. “Because we need militias, we won’t infringe the public’s rights to bear arms.”
Does this mean that gun ownership is an absolute? Of course not, as Free Speech is not (slander, libel). There is and has been for a long time a line drawn on this issue. Automatic weapons? Bazookas? Howitzers? You’d have a hard time convincing me that there is an “unlimited” right to own such weapons. And please don’t make the “slippery slope” argument.
Stofsky
Considering that you were the one that opened up the thread from a pure historical thread, I find it telling that you have run off without addressing any of the real points made in here.
I guess your HCI talking points did not hold up under scrutiny. Next time do a little research before you throw yourself into a debate with someone else’s point of view.
Is it possible to hijack a thread BACK to the OP? I’m giving it a try.
I’ve just read a borrowed copy of Michael Bellesiles book Arming America. Well, OK, not the whole thing, but a good portion of it. It’s important to note the reason that I didn’t finish it. I began to check the bibliographical references, incited by Mr. Stromberg’s review. In several instances (Arming America is very thoroughly annotated—perhaps to Mr. Bellesiles detriment) the sources seemed to say exactly the opposite of what Mr. Bellesiles intended to illustrate. Reading a page or two forward or back to get the context of a cite revealed even more inconsistency with Mr. Bellesiles points of view.
As a scholarly work, IMO, the book is invalidated by this apparent contradiction. I can’t speak as to the author’s motives or intent etc., so it’s entirely possible that he simply made a lot of mistakes.
I’m not forwarding the notion that his argument is invalid, mind you; just that his book does nothing to support it.
I strongly urge everyone to read the book before commenting on it. Check the cites for yourselves. Don’t take my word for it. Think for yourselves.
I now return you to your previously scheduled hijack about grammar.:rolleyes:
By Jerry Stratton:
The 2nd amendment isn’t hard to understand. There is this thing called a “well-regulated militia”, and it is necessary for the security of a “free state”. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The first part is a reason, and it doesn’t even have to be the only one. The second part is a statement, and it stands on its own. If it wasn’t about guns no one would question that the right of the people is the right of the people.
Or consider the following:
“Dead deer, being necessary for the stocking of a well-rounded larder, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Does this sentence make sense? Of course it does. Does it say that the right in question is the right of dead deer to bear arms? Of course not. The writer obviously believes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary for there to be dead deer. - Jerry Stratton
'Cuz you got no facts to back up your utterly ridiculous claims? It’s okay, every has a “the sky is falling!” phase in their lives. Some just last longer than others.
Man, Stof’ems, you’ve butchered syntax, grammar, and sentence structure enough in this thread. Give it a rest already, huh? You’re gonna have a mental breakdown and run through the streets screaming “Subject!! Predicate!! Dependent Clause!! Pink Elephants On Parade!!”
Sounds cool! I’ll bring the rifles and beer if you bring the ammo and popcorn.
We’ll take turns trying to pick him off, and if you miss, you hafta chug a beer.
All in the name of public safety, of course. 
ExTank
“Mostly Harmless, But A Good Shot :p”
Yer on, Ex’ems.
One request, though… 'stead of having to chug a beer, can I chug a Zima? It’s zomething different, you know.
We could get really silly, and go with tequila.
But I doubt that there’s an urban center capable of that level of sustained mayhem outside of Beirut.
ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”
ZIMA?!? What are you, nuts?!
– tracer, who will never be able to look at a Zima again thanks to the 2nd season of Babylon 5.
I like guns, tracer. Of course I’m nuts.
From the book, the thoughts of chairman Mao. “Power grows from the barrel of a gun”. Nice phrase, simple straight foreward and simple to understand. Now all of you great students and intelectuals look carefully at what is not in the hands of the common everyday citizenry of the Peoples Republic of China. Look anywhere in the world at an overthrow of power. What is the tool most often used? What is the tool most often confiscated after power has been established in new hands. The drafters of the constitution and the bill of rights were a lot smarter than given credit for. They tried to do the best they could with current accepted standards. That the current standards didn’t treat all fairly is immaterial. No person, group or race will ever preceive themselves as being treated fairly as long as there is any form of jealously, or prejudice. We still have reasonably free elections in the USA without any more fixing that the citizenry will stand for. The loser in elections generally goes quietly instead of trying the armed uprising that happens in other places because those who voted for the winning candidate would probably take a very dim view of this behavior. We are what we are because of the constitution and the ammendments. Not all accept this because of the jealousy and prejudice problem.
We need a rewrite for the Second Amendmant to end all ths arguing. How is this?
“The right to keep and bear arms by an individual shall not be infringed, except for reasonable safeguards,”
You guys love that word reasonable. I will give my full personal support to this re-write as long as you agree to give me the power to define reasonable.
How about this re-write for Amendment II:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, dammit.”
Tracer, I’d ratify that any day, except we’ve gotta spill some beer and get some tobacco stains on the document for it to be official