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.
Really? Because there are over 200k arsons committed yearly using matches and lighters. Why don't you advocate taking away all matches and lighters from everyone? You only want to ban things you don't like. Silly little thing called the 2nd amendment allows law abiding citizens to own firearms. I will take the Constitution over your opinion any day!
Don't give dems any ideas. Match control will be their next issue.
I was watching this very cool documentary about black market guns. These particular guns were being manufactured in small rural towns in Philippines. They are freighted to the ports and shipped directly into Compton. These guns have no serial numbers. They typically are fired once and discarded.
So despite strong gun control, they'll still find a way into this country and into the wrong hands.
guns are not the problem.....millions of people have guns and never do anything illegal
50 people shot..in one weekend...in Chicago.....that's not a gun problem.....that's a culture problem
blaming guns and taking guns away (you can't)...is the simple solution (it won't work or solve the problem)
putting the blame where it belongs...a certain culture....is too uncomfortable....and puts it in a place politicians don't want to go
how can you romance their vote by telling them it's not their own fault....and then turn around and hold them accountable for their culture causing it
So in controlling people, rather than guns, mentally ill people need to be put in an insane asylum, rather than get their guns taken away? And evil people need in prison. In effect, some people need separated from their guns.
Don't give dems any ideas. Match control will be their next issue.
Nah, it's all about people control and government having the will to do it. Arsonists should be separated from their matches and other fire setting stuff by sending them to prison. It's the responsibility of government to protect us from such people, who want to wreck our freedoms and security.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,633 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50660
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunetunelover
I don't have a gun and don't want one. Actually, I think my husband has two but I have no idea where they are nor do I have any interest in them.
However, I do have an interest in history (and grammar) and the rights afforded to us by the Constitution.
Interpret how you like, but to many the meaning is clear.
And that's how we get sentences like this. Because some people reading this think it's clear, but in fact, this sentence states the alarm was walking through the kitchen:
"Walking through the kitchen, the smoke alarm was going off."
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.
That's not even grammatical. The clauses don't align.
I'll rewrite it grammatically, but it still won't be clear:
Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But that's STILL not clear in intent.
What would be clear is if they had said this:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
OR
"The right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Either of the two statements I bolded would have been crystal clear. A mishmash of them, which is what we have in the 2nd amendment, is not only ungrammatical but also unclear as to intent.
What is grammatically incorrect about the way the 2nd amendment is written? That is perfectly sound and clear English. And it is English, not American, which was the language spoken at that time.
Your suggested wording has a grammatical error, albeit a minor one. Here, I fixed it for you.
Quote:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The capitalization of the words Militia and Arms was to emphasize those two points.
The wording or the 2A is perfectly clear and makes it impossible to twist the meaning thereof. Of it's still possible to try. Just like people try to blame the gun for what people do.
And that's how we get sentences like this. Because some people reading this think it's clear, but in fact, this sentence states the alarm was walking through the kitchen:
"Walking through the kitchen, the smoke alarm was going off."
Unfortunately, people today are not as intelligent as our forefathers.
Most reasonable people would know that smoke alarms don't walk. Just like most reasonable people would know not to use a hair dryer in a bath tub, or that tide pods are not candy.
PS. The Massachusetts Constitution:
Article XVII.
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
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.
