Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
guns
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1285645" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>You keep talking about bringing up race, and yet, I quote the militia act of 1792 that SPECIFICALLY describes WHO could be in the militias and you still want to make it a racial thing.</p><p></p><p>Listen, why are you arguing with me on this issue? The ACT is clear, only WHITE men could be in the militia, only WHITE men between ages 18 and 45 could be in the militia.</p><p></p><p>These are called facts.</p><p></p><p>You may not like them, and it destroys the arguments that EVERYONE at the time could be in a militia, but they are the FACTS.</p><p></p><p>One poster said that blacks were armed at the time, yet, at the time, they were slaves. How does this reconcile?</p><p></p><p>If blacks were armed, why were they hanged when they were discovered with guns?</p><p></p><p>You all are so confused with Historical Rhetoric, fed to you by lobby groups like the NRA it has taken your ability to understand history away from you.</p><p></p><p>If the founders wanted EVERYONE to be armed, the second amendment would say so. If the founders wanted citizens to be unregulated with "ARMS", then it would not have included the PREAMBLE "a well regulated militia", then followed that up with a separate act to define it.</p><p></p><p>One poster attempted to point out that "simple english" would help people to understand the meaning of the second amendment, and I agree, but, not the way the poster points out.</p><p></p><p>You see, if we applied "simple english", You all would understand the use of the COMMA and a PREAMBLE.</p><p></p><p>This is something that GUN owners want to ignore, yet, still believe they got it all figured out.</p><p></p><p>On one hand, the gun owner points to the second amendment and thinks, believes and see's a sentence that says ...</p><p></p><p>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...</p><p></p><p>Whats a fact is, THAT SENTENCE DOES NOT EXIST in the second amendment.</p><p></p><p>And this is the problem with the interpretation of the second amendment. What is does say is:</p><p></p><p>"A well regulated Militia<strong><span style="font-size: 22px">,</span></strong> being necessary to the security of a free State<strong><span style="font-size: 22px">,</span></strong> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms<strong><span style="font-size: 22px">,</span></strong> shall not be infringed."</p><p></p><p>What gun owners want to do is to ADD two segments of this entire sentence as a stand alone sentence, yet separate them from the first two components of the sentence.</p><p></p><p>In the sentence gun owners believe is in the second amendment, there is NO COMMA in between the right of the people to keep and bear arms AND shall not be infringed.</p><p></p><p>Gun owners want to CONNECT the last two components as applying to each other as a sentence but the first two components they want to ignore.</p><p></p><p>If the two sentences are suppose to be connected even though separated by a comma, why do the first two components of the sentence not apply to the second two components of the sentence?</p><p></p><p>A comma is defined as:</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 18px"><strong>com·ma</strong></span></p><p>/ˈkɒm<img src="http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />ə/ <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word" target="_blank"><strong>word</strong></a><strong>, phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence.</strong> It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The second amendment contains a preamble "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA", and everything after that comma is the order that it applies to that MILITIA.</p><p></p><p>This would be "simple english". </p><p></p><p>The supreme court recently has ruled that gun owners could possess handguns in the home and that the second amendment doesnt give precendent to militias, but this has been an argument for decades.</p><p></p><p>The original text of the second amendment read like this...</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>We can argue all day long, but at the end of the day, the current supreme court ruled in a 5 to 4 ruling that gun owners can keep their guns. </p><p></p><p>Someday, the majority may go the other way and that could just as easily change.</p><p></p><p>TOS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1285645, member: 17969"] You keep talking about bringing up race, and yet, I quote the militia act of 1792 that SPECIFICALLY describes WHO could be in the militias and you still want to make it a racial thing. Listen, why are you arguing with me on this issue? The ACT is clear, only WHITE men could be in the militia, only WHITE men between ages 18 and 45 could be in the militia. These are called facts. You may not like them, and it destroys the arguments that EVERYONE at the time could be in a militia, but they are the FACTS. One poster said that blacks were armed at the time, yet, at the time, they were slaves. How does this reconcile? If blacks were armed, why were they hanged when they were discovered with guns? You all are so confused with Historical Rhetoric, fed to you by lobby groups like the NRA it has taken your ability to understand history away from you. If the founders wanted EVERYONE to be armed, the second amendment would say so. If the founders wanted citizens to be unregulated with "ARMS", then it would not have included the PREAMBLE "a well regulated militia", then followed that up with a separate act to define it. One poster attempted to point out that "simple english" would help people to understand the meaning of the second amendment, and I agree, but, not the way the poster points out. You see, if we applied "simple english", You all would understand the use of the COMMA and a PREAMBLE. This is something that GUN owners want to ignore, yet, still believe they got it all figured out. On one hand, the gun owner points to the second amendment and thinks, believes and see's a sentence that says ... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... Whats a fact is, THAT SENTENCE DOES NOT EXIST in the second amendment. And this is the problem with the interpretation of the second amendment. What is does say is: "A well regulated Militia[B][SIZE=6],[/SIZE][/B] being necessary to the security of a free State[B][SIZE=6],[/SIZE][/B] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[B][SIZE=6],[/SIZE][/B] shall not be infringed." What gun owners want to do is to ADD two segments of this entire sentence as a stand alone sentence, yet separate them from the first two components of the sentence. In the sentence gun owners believe is in the second amendment, there is NO COMMA in between the right of the people to keep and bear arms AND shall not be infringed. Gun owners want to CONNECT the last two components as applying to each other as a sentence but the first two components they want to ignore. If the two sentences are suppose to be connected even though separated by a comma, why do the first two components of the sentence not apply to the second two components of the sentence? A comma is defined as: [SIZE=5][B]com·ma[/B][/SIZE] /ˈkɒm[IMG]http://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/IMG]ə/ [URL='http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word'][B]word[/B][/URL][B], phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence.[/B] It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point. The second amendment contains a preamble "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA", and everything after that comma is the order that it applies to that MILITIA. This would be "simple english". The supreme court recently has ruled that gun owners could possess handguns in the home and that the second amendment doesnt give precendent to militias, but this has been an argument for decades. The original text of the second amendment read like this... "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." We can argue all day long, but at the end of the day, the current supreme court ruled in a 5 to 4 ruling that gun owners can keep their guns. Someday, the majority may go the other way and that could just as easily change. TOS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
guns
Top
