"Leif" <leifrakur2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190340183.822207.25630@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sep 20, 1:35 am, "Scout"
> <me4g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Leif" <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190263499.204359.138190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 19, 2:33 pm, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> > <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> >> innews:1190083380.898090.109280@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> > On Sep 17, 8:21 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> >> > <rdsandman(spamlock)@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> Leif <leifrak...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> >> >> innews:1190003663.704286.7890@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> >> > Each application of the term "the people" takes some of its
>> >> >> > meaning
>> >> >> > from its context. In the Second Amendment, the context is the
>> >> >> > well
>> >> >> > regulated militia. "The people" in that amendment were made
up
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > all those nonexempt men who, under state militia law, were
>> >> >> > considered capable of bearing arms (capable of military
service)
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > a well regulated militia.
>>
>> >> >> IOW, you feel that anyone over the age of 45 has to turn in their
>> >> >> guns since they have no right to have them?
>>
>> >> > Leif speaking: Of course I don't feel that "anyone over the age
of
>> >> > 45
>> >> > should have to turn in their guns," if they have their guns in
>> >> > compliance with all laws. But the Second Amendment is simply not
>> >> > involved, unless possession of the guns is in some way related to
>> >> > militia service.
>>
>> >> Second Amendment and RKBA are two separate issues.
>>
>> > Leif speaking: I agree. The Second Amendment is about the right of
>> > the people as a militia
>>
>> Sorry, I seem to have missed that "as a miliita" modifier. Where
exactly
>> in
>> the 2nd can I find it and by what process of grammar does it become a
>> modifier of "the people"?
>>
>> I mean you keep asserting this modifier is attached to the people, but
>> somehow you never seem able to point out where it is in the sentence or
>> by
>> what process under the Standard Rules of English it modifies the noun
>> "people".
>>
>> > to keep and bear arms for the security of a
>> > free state. An individual right to keep and bear arms is about the
>> > personal use of guns.
>>
>> Yep, but again I see nothing that declares the right to keep and bear
>> arms
>> shall only be protected for one purpose. Again can you show me where in
>> the
>> 2nd it states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed
>> only for the purpose of providing security for a free state, and by
what
>> process "security of a free state" becomes attached to "shall not be
>> infringed"?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Leif speaking: The entire first half of the Second Amendment tells us
> that the amendment is about the im****tance of a well regulated militia
> in the security of a free state.
Yep, but I'm still waiting for you to explain to me by what method under
the
rules of english grammar that first part comes to control, modify, or
limit
the second part.
> If the amendment had been about
> individual gun use, Madison would have said so.
He did, or do you think "the people" somehow excludes individuals? Without
individuals how do you have "the people"?
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
common
interest
www.m-w.com
Last time I checked, human beings were individual beings not some
collective
being.
Oh, you don't like that definition, then how about:
4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class
<disputes between the people and the nobles> -- often used by Communists
to
distinguish Communists from other people
"mass of a commuity as distiguished from a special class"....would that be
like the people vs. the militia?
Unless, you're going to tell me the militia is the same as the "mass of
the
community" at which point your claim that the 2nd applies only to the NG
is
destroyed, since the NG is a "special class".
Still not happy? Well then how about this one?
5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture,
tradition, or sense of kin****p, that typically have common language,
institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically
organized
group
oh, this is a good one since it even recognizes their formation as a
"politically organized group".
Gee, now tell me Leif, what exactly does "a body of persons" mean to you?
Is
a "body of persons" a collective or a grouping of individuals?
Maybe we better check to see what "persons" means. Wouldn't want to leave
any stone unturned.
Persons =
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those
who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both ***es
<chairperson>
<spokesperson>
6 : one (as a human being, a partner****p, or a cor****ation) that is
recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
Seem to be the only two that would apply in this context, and both refer
to
individuals. Seems the idea that "a body of persons" refers to a
collective
would be right out.
So let's get back to people and see if we can find any definition which
can
possibly refer to your "collective".
7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state
Hmmm. Now this sounds interesting. Maybe you have something after all. I
mean citizens could be either an expression of either individualistic or
as
a collective. However, maybe the term "body" will tell us, since it has
been
used once already to express a grouping of individuals. If it can
similarly
express a grouping of collectiveness then maybe you still have a leg to
stand on.
Body =
5 : a group of persons or things: as a : a fighting unit : FORCE b : a
group
of individuals organized for some purpose <a legislative body>
darn, there's that "group of persons" again, then we have b: were as "a
legislative body" it speaks specifically of organized individuals.
Hmmmm..... doesn't sound like there's room for a collective in there given
that two seperate references to it's use as an individualistic term.
Nope, looks like the English language as defined doesn't sup****t your
assertion that "the people" is a collective. The only "collectivness"
about
the term is the fact that it involves persons or individuals in
association,
but not as a collective.
So tell me, where in this dictionary do I find a reference to your
"people"
being used to express the idea of a collective rather than as a group of
persons or individuals?
I mean as often as you've made this claim, and as often as you assert you
know exactly what you're talking about, then surely you can find that
definition of the term "people" that sup****ts your claims about a
"collective".
Just so you don't have any problems just click on the link below and type
in
the word you want to find the definition of in the search box that
appears.
www.m-w.com
..
>Here's a rule from
> Judge Story that covers the im****tance of preambles:
<snip>
Hiding behind the skirts of authority again. What's the matter there Leif
unable to sup****t your own claims on their own merits?
|
