U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 11:47 AM
 
Location: USA
18,305 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13753

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
As many have pointed out, to truly read and follow the 2nd amendment as written, one must consider the whole thing - not just the last clause. The first four words: "A well regulated militia..." The whole "well-regulated" part seems to get little attention. The sentence is poorly written and ambiguous because the first clause leads to the second without any coordinating conjunction or other part of speech linking the two ideas together in a way that makes sense. The first clause is what we would call a sentence fragment.
It is not ambiguous. "Well Regulated" means well trained, practiced, and well equipped. Clocks used to be called "Regulators" for this reason. The Right of the PEOPLE is separate from being in a militia. It says the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the State or of the Militia.

 
Old Today, 11:48 AM
 
9,614 posts, read 2,365,260 times
Reputation: 4774
A modest proposal: Instead of govt trying to restrict guns, why not uphold the 2nd amendment?


I am in favor of people joining the National Guard ... sure.
 
Old Today, 11:49 AM
 
29,678 posts, read 15,543,544 times
Reputation: 20163
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
I don't think it's that clear at all.
Why are the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights?

It's called the Bill of Rights because it lists the rights guaranteed to individuals. If they were not addressing the rights of the individual to be armed it would not have appeared in the list of rights for the individual.
 
Old Today, 11:50 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,185 posts, read 1,417,517 times
Reputation: 3725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
"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."


How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
Suppose the amendment read instead:

"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And then, two hundred years later, astronauts finally landed on the moon and proved once and for all it was NOT made of green cheese. Would this mean the the people's right to KBA was now eliminated?

Of course not. In English usage common at the time (and still prevalent today) the last 14 words of the amendment stand by themselves, regardless of the part before them.

Back to the subject:
Would anybody care to speculate on the chances that the OP's proposal would result in fewer shootings than the present hodgepodges of govt laws, which are usually obeyed only by law-abiding people?
 
Old Today, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,878 posts, read 4,466,164 times
Reputation: 1416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
There's a reason for that.

The correct interpretation is much closer to:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

Back to the subject:
Would anybody care to speculate on the chances that the OP's proposal would result in fewer shootings than the present hodgepodges of govt laws, which are usually obeyed only by law-abiding people?
I solved the problem and you brought the problem back ... great job.
 
Old Today, 11:51 AM
 
Location: USA
18,305 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
A modest proposal: Instead of govt trying to restrict guns, why not uphold the 2nd amendment?


I am in favor of people joining the National Guard ... sure.
The National Guard is not the Militia, and not the "PEOPLE", but you've already been told that in many previous threads but choose to stay ignorant, uniformed and anti American,
 
Old Today, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,070 posts, read 13,388,509 times
Reputation: 4610
So the mentally insane and convicted armed robbers should be allowed to carry guns?
 
Old Today, 11:54 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,185 posts, read 1,417,517 times
Reputation: 3725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
I solved the problem and you brought the problem back ... great job.
What "problem" did your false statements about the 2nd amendment, solve?
 
Old Today, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
15,070 posts, read 13,388,509 times
Reputation: 4610
Everybody should be checked before entering gun free zones to ensure it is a gun free zone.
 
Old Today, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,625 posts, read 2,827,549 times
Reputation: 1676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Suppose the amendment read instead:

"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And then, two hundred years later, astronauts finally landed on the moon and proved once and for all it was NOT made of green cheese. Would this mean the the people's right to KBA was now eliminated?

Of course not. In English usage common at the time (and still prevalent today) the last 14 words of the amendment stand by themselves, regardless of the part before them.

Back to the subject:
Would anybody care to speculate on the chances that the OP's proposal would result in fewer shootings than the present hodgepodges of govt laws, which are usually obeyed only by law-abiding people?
But that's not what the amendment says. Anyhow, it's pointless having any kind of discussion with 2nd Amendment absolutists. I'm a licensed gun owner myself. Just remember that poll after poll shows the vast majority of Americans want more regulation of guns, not less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top