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.
What were you saying earlier, that it was different then?
Well regulated = well trained.
2. To adjust, in respect of time, quantity, force, etc., with reference to some standard or purpose; esp. to adjust (a clock or other machine) so that the working may be accurate.
1662 J. DAVIES tr. Olearius' Voy. Ambass. 391 The Persians regulate their Feasts according to the Moon. 1728 R. MORRIS Ess. Anc. Archit. 60 Palladio has not been a little assisting to me in regulating the Proportions. 1750 tr. Leonardus' Mirr. Stones 33 The heat should be proportioned and regulated by the mineral or effective virtue of the stone itself. 1800 tr. Lagrange's Chem. II. 50 Care must be taken to regulate the fire properly. 1812-16 PLAYFAIR Nat. Phil. (1819) II. 107 Clocks ought to be regulated by the mean solar time. 1842 Penny Cycl. XXII. 485/1 He can..regulate the throttle-valve by hand-gear placed within his reach.
refl. 1776 ADAM SMITH W.N. IV. I. i. II. 9 The quantity of every commodity..naturally regulates itself in every country according to the effectual demand.
That wasn't the idea in the definition you provided and I highlighted. But let us assume this. How does this contemporary meaning of "regulation" apply to the Adam Smith quote I provided from Wealth of Nations?
I've been waiting for your answer along those lines.
To address the last para, its about a business opportunity. Frighten people... reap profits. I understand you're a conservative and consequently may not be into watching or keeping up with likes of Jon Stewart like I do. But a piece like this is worth watching to have clues to those whys.
Yeah - some of the rhetoric and hysteria just doesn't make sense.
I've got a lot of friends who are gun enthusiasts. The most ethical, civic-minded, law-abiding citizens you'll find anywhere. They go out target-shooting, and hunt a lot. Their families eat wild game all year long. Good stuff. Why should they be denied the opportunity to own guns and hunt?
Then I have a 23-year old family member, whose newlywed wife got him a .38 Special for Christmas last year so that he can "keep them safe." It's stupid. He has never touched a gun in his life, and hasn't taken any lessons since. If he EVER shoots anything, it will be himself or his wife - not an intruder.
Myself? I don't hunt, and I just don't have any particular desire to spend the money on guns & ammo. So I don't. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
So wrong! Those desiring gun control are demographic in nature. City dwellers of both political affiliation are the one's desiring control. Dem's and Repub's out in the country don't want gun control.
And I was right that y'all are better served picking the "right" pieces. Anything more is just inconvenience.
We now have that settled as well.
I'm not "y'all."
I haven't seen anyone avoid any part. They may not quote the whole amendment, just like most don't when they talk about any amendment. Would you like to explain what makes you think people are avoiding it versus just using an abbreviated reference to it - kind of like people refer to "freedom of religion" without quoting the whole amendment, same with right to vote etc.?
Would you like to make a point about why you think the rest of the amendment would be something people would be "scared" of, or do you want to continue lobbing baseless assumptions without making any point? Why not discuss what there is about the beginning of the amendment that you think people are afraid of and see if anyone responds? That way you may be able to see if there is any merit to your assumptions rather than continuing to not make a point and then claim people are afraid of the point you never made?
Speak through your words. Claims don't make for a good argument to me. It sounds more like you're desperately trying to separate self from a collective I referred to.
Quote:
I haven't seen anyone avoid any part. They may not quote the whole amendment, just like most don't when they talk about any amendment.
Did you? And why do they not?
Quote:
Would you like to explain what makes you think people are avoiding it versus just using an abbreviated reference to it - kind of like people refer to "freedom of religion" without quoting the whole amendment, same with right to vote etc.?
I'm glad you brought this up. Let us look at the two amendments:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
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.
Do you think the founders threw in punctuations without recognizing the differences?
Quote:
Would you like to make a point about why you think the rest of the amendment would be something people would be "scared" of, or do you want to continue lobbing baseless assumptions without making any point?
When you're aware of the base, try not to call it baseless. Y'all avoid the first part for a reason. THAT is the base. But then, I'd been assuming you were able to understand implications of punctuations as well as the author of the US Constitution did. May be he didn't the way you do?
Speak through your words. Claims don't make for a good argument to me. It sounds more like you're desperately trying to separate self from a collective I referred to.
Did you? And why do they not?
I'm glad you brought this up. Let us look at the two amendments:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
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.
Do you think the founders threw in punctuations without recognizing the differences?
When you're aware of the base, try not to call it baseless. Y'all avoid the first part for a reason. THAT is the base. But then, I'd been assuming you were able to understand implications of punctuations as well as the author of the US Constitution did. May be he didn't the way you do?
As I thought, you are unwilling to state your point.
Make a point about the first part and see if it gets avoided. To quote someone who believes himself to be wise, "Claims don't make for a good argument to me."
Yes, the punctuation was used with a purpose.
First of all, Obama has not even said one thing about taking guns away the whole time he has been in office. second of all, if anyone tried to take all guns away, it goes against the 2nd amendment and would be taken to court and third, I do not know anyone that wants all guns taken away. if anything, we just want gun law reform meaning things like backround checks when buying a gun or taking fingerprints or something, NOT taking all guns away.
As I thought, you are unwilling to state your point.
Make a point about the first part and see if it gets avoided. To quote someone who believes himself to be wise, "Claims don't make for a good argument to me."
Yes, the punctuation was used with a purpose.
So you got my point, while claiming I'm unwilling to state my point. How typical!
Now, would you mind spelling the purpose of the punctuations? Your previous post kind of dismissed the idea.
So you got my point, while claiming I'm unwilling to state my point. How typical!
Now, would you mind spelling the purpose of the punctuations? Your previous post kind of dismissed the idea.
Punction was used for a purpose. You seem to want to say something about the meaning of it, but are unwilling. You raised the topic of the meaning of the punctuation, so go ahead and make the point you want to make about its meaning. Why raise it and ask me to discuss it when you're the one trying to make a point?
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.
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.
Those desiring gun control are demographic in nature. City dwellers of both political affiliation are the one's desiring control. Dem's and Repub's out in the country don't want gun control.
