Hi,
I need help trying to translate the 2nd Amendment for someone I know. "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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)"
He is trying to interpret it to say that guns are only legal within a militia or military setting. Basically you can have a gun only if you are part of these groups. I already stated here that my dislike of guns does not give me the right to change the Constitution.
I don't want to tell him to read the Constitution, it didn't work the last time and it probably wouldn't work the next time this comes up :sad: . I think that his is is with the grammar/sentence structure being used, if that helps at all.
Thanks in advance
Blessings,
Karen
Because he fails to recognize the second part of the Amendment. Ask him where it authorizes the govt to hold these weapons until needed, then ask him why we even have a Bill of Rights.
Pssst! We have it so as to keep govt in check, so why would we trust a govt we're trying to contain, to hold our only means of keeping a tyrant in check?
"Amendment II
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 08, 2014, 06:10:53 PM
Hi,
I need help trying to translate the 2nd Amendment for someone I know. "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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)"
He is trying to interpret it to say that guns are only legal within a militia or military setting. Basically you can have a gun only if you are part of these groups. I already stated here that my dislike of guns does not give me the right to change the Constitution.
I don't want to tell him to read the Constitution, it didn't work the last time and it probably wouldn't work the next time this comes up :sad: . I think that his is is with the grammar/sentence structure being used, if that helps at all.
Thanks in advance
Blessings,
Karen
He is a typical liberal that quits reading the amendment at the word "militia.
As Solar indicates this second part is very clear. " the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 09, 2014, 08:30:35 AM
He is a typical liberal that quits reading the amendment at the word "militia.
As Solar indicates this second part is very clear. " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
He's a product of the so called "modern education system", of indoctrination.
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 08, 2014, 06:10:53 PM
Hi,
I need help trying to translate the 2nd Amendment for someone I know. "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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)"
He is trying to interpret it to say that guns are only legal within a militia or military setting. Basically you can have a gun only if you are part of these groups. I already stated here that my dislike of guns does not give me the right to change the Constitution.
I don't want to tell him to read the Constitution, it didn't work the last time and it probably wouldn't work the next time this comes up :sad: . I think that his is is with the grammar/sentence structure being used, if that helps at all.
Thanks in advance
Blessings,
Karen
It may help to point out to your friend that at the time the Constitution was written, and to a considerable extent even today, a 'militia' is comprised of every able-bodied adult male, whether enrolled in any organized military formation or not. Also, by his/her reckoning every local, state and federal police officer would be forced to surrender his/her weapons.
It might be entertaining (maybe even enlightening for one or both of you) to ask your friend what the word 'arms' means. As part of the conversation, you might slip in the fact that more people are murdered in the US with hammers or knives or automobiles or baseball bats or bare hands than with rifles, and murders with so-called 'assault rifles' account for only a tiny percentage of the tiny number of rifle killings. (For a quick look at some recent homicide statistics, this page (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8) is helpful.)
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 09, 2014, 12:17:35 PM
It may help to point out to your friend that at the time the Constitution was written, and to a considerable extent even today, a 'militia' is comprised of every able-bodied adult male, whether enrolled in any organized military formation or not. Also, by his/her reckoning every local, state and federal police officer would be forced to surrender his/her weapons.
It might be entertaining (maybe even enlightening for one or both of you) to ask your friend what the word 'arms' means. As part of the conversation, you might slip in the fact that more people are murdered in the US with hammers or knives or automobiles or baseball bats or bare hands than with rifles, and murders with so-called 'assault rifles' account for only a tiny percentage of the tiny number of rifle killings. (For a quick look at some recent homicide statistics, this page (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8) is helpful.)
Hi,
Thanks, I'll work with that. I was really lost on his interpretation. I will try the what does he consider arms question. I have already tried English grammar lessons, and that didn't work. I've debated with him on other topics before and they haven't gone well.
Yes Solar he is quite a bit more what the stereotypical Liberal looks like. He's atheist and will insult anyone with faith in any belief. I'm not Christian, but respect any belief other than black magic/satanic type cults. It's a little strange putting it that way, because I don't believe in Satan.
Blessings,
Karen
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 09, 2014, 09:49:44 PM
Hi,
Thanks, I'll work with that. I was really lost on his interpretation. I will try the what does he consider arms question. I have already tried English grammar lessons, and that didn't work. I've debated with him on other topics before and they haven't gone well.
Yes Solar he is quite a bit more what the stereotypical Liberal looks like. He's atheist and will insult anyone with faith in any belief. I'm not Christian, but respect any belief other than black magic/satanic type cults. It's a little strange putting it that way, because I don't believe in Satan.
Blessings,
Karen
" Yes Solar he is quite a bit more what the stereotypical Liberal looks like. He's atheist and will insult anyone with faith in any belief."
As time goes by you will find what you describe above is the norm for many liberals. Most of us on this board have been on other boards previously that are overrun with people that fit perfectly into this category.
Quote from: supsalemgr on March 10, 2014, 04:41:02 AM
" Yes Solar he is quite a bit more what the stereotypical Liberal looks like. He's atheist and will insult anyone with faith in any belief."
As time goes by you will find what you describe above is the norm for many liberals. Most of us on this board have been on other boards previously that are overrun with people that fit perfectly into this category.
They must really lead empty lives, having no faith outside of...
Well nothing. I'm not religious in the least bit, nor would I ever insult any others faith, for it was those of faith that built this great Nation, but I will insult and demean those that attack the Christian religion, as I would defend a friend and neighbor under attack.
These idiots have no idea they're simply tools of the leftists when they attack religion, (exempting muscum, a political system disguised as a religion), they attack the very core of our Bill of Rights, for to deny a god, is to remove the foundation of our principles.
Hell, even if one doesn't believe in God, they better think about the consequences of not supporting religion in this country.
Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2014, 06:54:04 AM
They must really lead empty lives, having no faith outside of...
Well nothing. I'm not religious in the least bit, nor would I ever insult any others faith, for it was those of faith that built this great Nation, but I will insult and demean those that attack the Christian religion, as I would defend a friend and neighbor under attack.
These idiots have no idea they're simply tools of the leftists when they attack religion, (exempting muscum, a political system disguised as a religion), they attack the very core of our Bill of Rights, for to deny a god, is to remove the foundation of our principles.
Hell, even if one doesn't believe in God, they better think about the consequences of not supporting religion in this country.
I think it's a situation where a true follower of liberalism/progressivism can't reconcile his/her beliefs with Christianity or really any other major religion, even including Islam. That is, if you're a lib/prog and you decide to accept the Christian faith (for example), then you have to stop being a lib/prog. The two things cannot coexist.
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 10, 2014, 07:01:14 AM
I think it's a situation where a true follower of liberalism/progressivism can't reconcile his/her beliefs with Christianity or really any other major religion, even including Islam. That is, if you're a lib/prog and you decide to accept the Christian faith (for example), then you have to stop being a lib/prog. The two things cannot coexist.
Hi,
Why can't they coexist? There are Pagan Conservatives, and I've met Christian Liberals. Faith is faith whether one God or 50 Gods (or Goddesses).
Blessings,
Karen
Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2014, 06:54:04 AM
They must really lead empty lives, having no faith outside of...
Well nothing. I'm not religious in the least bit, nor would I ever insult any others faith, for it was those of faith that built this great Nation, but I will insult and demean those that attack the Christian religion, as I would defend a friend and neighbor under attack.
These idiots have no idea they're simply tools of the leftists when they attack religion, (exempting muscum, a political system disguised as a religion), they attack the very core of our Bill of Rights, for to deny a god, is to remove the foundation of our principles.
Hell, even if one doesn't believe in God, they better think about the consequences of not supporting religion in this country.
.
Hi,
I believe that atheism counts as a religion. That makes their argument even worse.
Blessings,
Karen
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 10, 2014, 07:14:31 AM
.
Hi,
I believe that atheism counts as a religion. That makes their argument even worse.
Blessings,
Karen455
LOL! So a strong belief in nothing, is now a religion? :lol:
Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2014, 07:31:17 AM
LOL! So a strong belief in nothing, is now a religion? :lol:
IF you start pushing the atheism agenda in my face then it becomes a religion.
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 10, 2014, 07:12:16 AM
Hi,
Why can't they coexist? There are Pagan Conservatives, and I've met Christian Liberals. Faith is faith whether one God or 50 Gods (or Goddesses).
Blessings,
Karen
That's why I said "major religions." As for coexisting, please explain how support for abortion on demand dovetails with "Thou shalt not kill." Please explain how support for gay marriage fits in with any major religion on Earth. Please explain how an overriding concern and willingness to punish men for the sake of preserving an obscure animal (like the delta smelt, e.g., among many others) goes along with the concept of mankind created in the image of God and the provision of the Earth and all its creatures for mankind's use and pleasure.
It reminds me of a saying I've heard about fishermen. There are good fishermen and there are impatient fishermen, but there are no good impatient fishermen.
Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2014, 07:31:17 AM
Hi,
Yea pretty much. It is an organized belief and I think there are now Atheist churches.
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 10, 2014, 08:17:02 AM
Hi,
Yea pretty much. It is an organized belief and I think there are now Atheist churches.
"We have come here today, to praise nothing" that's all, now go home and and reflect on what you've learned today.
Oh, and please, show an expression of your
lack of faith when the donation basket is passed around.... :lol:
You do realize these so called churches are nothing but a childish insult directed at those that do believe, and just another offspring of the Marxist movement, in an effort to bring more into the godless flock of communism, right?
These people are simply useful idiots of the Marxists.
Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2014, 08:30:44 AM
"We have come here today, to praise nothing" that's all, now go home and and reflect on what you've learned today.
Oh, and please, show an expression of your lack of faith when the donation basket is passed around.... :lol:
You do realize these so called churches are nothing but a childish insult directed at those that do believe, and just another offspring of the Marxist movement, in an effort to bring more into the godless flock of communism, right?
These people are simply useful idiots of the Marxists.
Hi,
Yea, you have a point there. Ok, I had to reread that. I wasn't sure if atheism itself was a childish insult, but I do see your point about atheist churches.
Blessings,
Karen
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 10, 2014, 11:22:22 AM
Hi,
Yea, you have a point there. Ok, I had to reread that. I wasn't sure if atheism itself was a childish insult, but I do see your point about atheist churches.
Blessings,
Karen
I have no issue with atheists, though I do take issue with these idiots claiming it''s a religion?
These are nothing but fools doing the work of Marxists.
Quote from: Solar on March 10, 2014, 12:01:46 PM
I have no issue with atheists, though I do take issue with these idiots claiming it''s a religion?
These are nothing but fools doing the work of Marxists.
Hi,
I understood what you meant.
Blessings,
Karen
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 10, 2014, 07:54:51 AM
That's why I said "major religions." As for coexisting, please explain how support for abortion on demand dovetails with "Thou shalt not kill." Please explain how support for gay marriage fits in with any major religion on Earth. Please explain how an overriding concern and willingness to punish men for the sake of preserving an obscure animal (like the delta smelt, e.g., among many others) goes along with the concept of mankind created in the image of God and the provision of the Earth and all its creatures for mankind's use and pleasure.
It reminds me of a saying I've heard about fishermen. There are good fishermen and there are impatient fishermen, but there are no good impatient fishermen.
Hi,
I'll retract part of that statement, it wasn't the most fair statement anyway. To touch on some of the issues though...
At least from what I have seen homosexuality (gay marriage) is only truly looked down on in Christianity and Islam. Hinduism doesn't seem to have a huge issue with it. Buddhism is ok with it's regular followers engaging in it, but doesn't want it's monks/nuns engaging in it. The Folk Religions (which do count as a major religion), really don't have a problem with it either.
Granted I understand why Christianity and Islam would have a problem with it. I believe that the struggle for survival (at that point) would have demanded that all available/ of age people procreate.
Most religions including Christianity say that humans are stewards of the earth. I don't know how they all would look at the extinction of a species versus humanities survival or convenience. Over all the thought seems to be closer to environmental stewardship and sustainability.
Blessings,
Karen
Quote from: uronotenshi on March 08, 2014, 06:10:53 PM
Hi,
I need help trying to translate the 2nd Amendment for someone I know. "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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)"
He is trying to interpret it to say that guns are only legal within a militia or military setting. Basically you can have a gun only if you are part of these groups. I already stated here that my dislike of guns does not give me the right to change the Constitution.
Here's what your friend is doing wrong. Look at the structure of 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"
The structure of the sentence is: "Because A is true, B." He's changing it to "If A is true, then B." Fundamentally different logic.
Think about also what he's saying in terms of what the bill of rights is.
- The Constitution cedes certain, enumerated powers from the people to to the Federal government.
- The 10th amendment says that powers not ceded by the people to the Federal government are prohibited to the Federal government.
- The bill of rights says here are particular things the Federal government cannot do.
So in the middle of reserving powers for the people and prohibiting them from the Federal government, he's arguing that they decided to have government give itself the right to have guns. :huh:
In that day, the militias were not government, they were citizens. What the 2nd amendment says in reality is:
Because the people have the right to defend themselves, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.
QuoteA 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.
The second amendment concerns two rights - 1) Right to well regulated militia, 2) Right to bear arms. Let's break it down:
[The right to]
A) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state)
B) Right of the people to keep and bear arms
Shall not be infringed.