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.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,947,000 times
Reputation: 16466
Advertisements
Posting this here because of it's political and controversial nature to get people thinking. It came to me after reading this article that here is the root problem between liberals and conservatives when it comes to discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
Below is a link to a story posted today on Yahoo that appeared last year in the Washington Post. The ghist is commentary by former Justice Stevens, that adding five words changes the 2nd Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
How about this instead?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. (Period, end of sentence, Capital T) The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
How much clearer can that be. The whole issue is one of syntax from poor composition over 200 years ago, not of the verbiage of the statement.
How are we as a nation going to reconcile these two seriously conflicting viewpoints?
the first thing that needs to be addressed is the phrase "well regulated" in regards to what it meant when the constitution was written;
Quote:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Posting this here because of it's political and controversial nature to get people thinking. It came to me after reading this article that here is the root problem between liberals and conservatives when it comes to discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
Below is a link to a story posted today on Yahoo that appeared last year in the Washington Post. The ghist is commentary by former Justice Stevens, that adding five words changes the 2nd Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
How about this instead?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. (Period, end of sentence, Capital T) The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
How much clearer can that be. The whole issue is one of syntax from poor composition over 200 years ago, not of the verbiage of the statement.
How are we as a nation going to reconcile these two seriously conflicting viewpoints?
Had the founding fathers added those 5 words or that extra punctuation, this would be worth discussing. However, they didn't. They were well educated and widely read, and they wrote exactly what they meant.
No one cares what Justice Stevens has to say. There's nothing wrong the 2nd Amendment as written.
Why don't you read what the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment had to say about it?
Because they're dead and don't matter. I frankly I don't care what they thought. Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of it, but not all of it all the time. For example, Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every few decades by new generations. I like that. Thus, I don't care what they thought about a lot of things. It has value and can be taken into consideration, but I prefer to not let dead people do my thinking for me. If I come to the same conclusion as them, so be it, but I'm not just going to ask their permission to think something first before I express an opinion. And neither should anyone else, and I think the people who's opinions you feel we should agree with would probably agree with me on this.
Posting this here because of it's political and controversial nature to get people thinking. It came to me after reading this article that here is the root problem between liberals and conservatives when it comes to discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
Below is a link to a story posted today on Yahoo that appeared last year in the Washington Post. The ghist is commentary by former Justice Stevens, that adding five words changes the 2nd Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
How about this instead?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. (Period, end of sentence, Capital T) The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
How much clearer can that be. The whole issue is one of syntax from poor composition over 200 years ago, not of the verbiage of the statement.
How are we as a nation going to reconcile these two seriously conflicting viewpoints?
We have people, adults, who write "should of" "could of" "would of", so it's no big surprise that these same people have no clue how to read a properly structured sentence. There's absolutely nothing wrong with how it was written. There is something wrong with those who fail English.
Because they're dead and don't matter. I frankly I don't care what they thought. Don't get me wrong, I agree with a lot of it, but not all of it all the time. For example, Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every few decades by new generations. I like that. Thus, I don't care what they thought about a lot of things. It has value and can be taken into consideration, but I prefer to not let dead people do my thinking for me. If I come to the same conclusion as them, so be it, but I'm not just going to ask their permission to think something first before I express an opinion. And neither should anyone else, and I think the people who's opinions you feel we should agree with would probably agree with me on this.
Another example of why this Nation is headed for disaster.
Apathetic people don't care about their constitution or their laws.
They feel they can obey and be change at their and societies whim of the day.
This is why you do not hear repeal the second amendment You just hear about wordings and interpretations and common sense restrictions.
Another example of why this Nation is headed for disaster.
Apathetic people don't care about their constitution or their laws.
They feel they can obey and be change at their and societies whim of the day.
This is why you do not hear repeal the second amendment You just hear about wordings and interpretations and common sense restrictions.
.....why? Thomas Jefferson did want the Constitution to be periodically rewritten.....
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.
