Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (230317)	12/4/2007 1:22:08 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

So what? The second part makes clear that a right to bear arms exists regardless of the first part says. The right shall not be abridged. The clear assumption is that the right is there and there is no situation provided that would justify the abridgement of this right. Even if the first part is now perfectly false, that does not negate the right referred to in the second part.

To: Lane3 who wrote (230317)	12/4/2007 1:23:15 PM
From: the_wheel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

Well, I guess that settles that then. I always wondered what the meaning of is "is". [is=being] <g>

To: Lane3 who wrote (230317)	12/4/2007 3:55:56 PM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

The two are linked. You have a right to form a militia, You have the right to bear your private arms. The right to form a militia without the right to own arms is worthless. Of what value is an unarmed militia?? Without the right to form a militia, you stand alone against any combination. 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 Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights on September 28, 1776. Article XIII: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. "As the instrument came from them it was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several state conventions. If we were to look, therefore, for the meaning of the instrument beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it, not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the Constitution." - - James Madison As quoted by Prof. George Steven Swan, School of Law, St. Thomas University, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, October 13, 1987.

To: Lane3 who wrote (230317)	12/4/2007 9:26:18 PM
From: ManyMoose	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

I don't claim to know what the conjoined sentence means as written. It means the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This right existed before the constitution and the constitution does not grant it. Instead, the Bill of Rights protects this and other rights of the people against the government. The meaning is the same with a comma separating two clauses in a single sentence as written, or a period between two sentences composed of the same or equivalent words. If the framers wanted it to mean that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, they would have said that without the need for the second clause. You may not know this, but during the revolution the militia was composed of people who owned and supplied their own arms. The framers knew this and wanted to make sure the people always had the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever private use the people make of their arms is immaterial to the needs of the militia. If the people have no arms then the militia has no arms either. You can't have it both ways. I think the Second Amendment is fine just the way it is written. It's people who want to infringe on the rights it protects who have a problem with it, not me. Every American must treasure every single right protected under the Bill of Rights. That a precious right should be lost by quibbling over a comma is unthinkable. If one is lost, then another can be lost. Surely this is clear to you. A double negative being the equivalent of affirmative, in English you can eat at McDonalds' even though a well-regulated kitchen is necessary for the preparation of a fine meal.