SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DMaA who wrote (230338)12/4/2007 7:46:22 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (1) of 793859
 
Well, no, I'm really not interpreting it in any way, other than saying grammatically they aren't stand alone sentences as someone stated earlier. While the second clause is a complete sentence, it is intentionally joined to the first and that implies a connection of A to B. The problem is that the nature of that intent is unclear, and what you believe is a "clear revelation of the beliefs of the writers" seems not to be that clear to all. And when you say you would argue "If A, then B", others would argue the connection as "Because you need A, B must exist".

I have no idea what they intended. THe early British historical record shows that the arming of citizens was a requirement (as opposed to a right) and was connected to the readiness for defense, then later they started controlling who had weapons. And when the British tried to disarm the colonies, there was a huge rebellion-- which may have influenced that wording- you NEED to be ready to put a militia into action against tyrannical rulers, and if so, you need those weapons.

The Constitution has stood up to a lot of years and challenges. I tend toward a pretty strict interpretation and a small penumbra. But sometimes I admit I wonder how the founding fathers would look at the gangs with their semi-automatics shooting up neighborhoods- and if they would want to revisit the 2nd.

So clear it really isn't. What you have is a strong argument (and not one with which I necessarily disagree) but there is definitely room for debate.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News