| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:18:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:47:41 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: wrote in message news 
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:50:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"wrote: wrote in message news:97b5335g4r6u0vvp6ddmkegnpsbc54ur52@4ax. com... On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:22:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: snip **I supply the KNOWN DGUs. Really? **Yeah, really. Or do you mean you supply the DGU's that result in a death? **Nope. Then why are they on the FBI list? **Those are the DGUs we know about. If you can supply the KNOWN DGUs whcih did not result in death, for the years listed, then we will have more data. 'Till then, that is all we have. No, that is all you want to recognize. **Read my lips: If you provide verifiable DGUs where death did not result, for the years listed, we can include them. Until then, that is the only data available. No, information has been posted before about DGU's that you accepted - then later denied. **Nope. That is not true. However, humour me: Post it again. Perhaps my news service did not pick up your post. I can find no evidence of anyone posting DGUs, FOR THE YEARS I LISTED, other than the ones from the FBI. You have admitted before that DGU's occur that are not on ***YOUR*** 'list'. **Indeed. However, recent demands by yourself and others have forced me to revise my figures to reflect more accuracy. I have done so. No, the only acuracy is that you have is that death resulted in those DGU's. **Fine. Supply your supplemental data for the years I listed. Now, if you wish to ensure that my figures remain accurate, then YOU must supply accurate data also. After all, if you supply poor data, then you will just accuse me of promulgating inaccurate data. Neither of us wants that, do we? You have previously admitted that DGU's occur that do not result in death. **Indeed. We also know that some DGU's are not reported to centralized databases such as the FBI. **Possibly. I don't know if that is the case or not. LOL What happened to 'honest' debate trevorboy? **I'll answer that in the only way possible: Do you know, for absolute certain, that all DGUs (which are reported to local authorities) are not also reported to the FBI? I sure as Hell don't know. I don't have any idea how much (or how little) information the FBI gathers each year. Do you have some inside information to impart? There are many, many credible studies that give varying figures - you reject those because you maintain they are not 'hard data'. **Of course. Many of those sources contain figures which are from very poorly executed surveys. Hard data is all we can rely upon to ascertain the truth. "Many" - then by your admission not all fit your category. **Indeed. All the surveys I've examined are faulty in some way. And no, hard data is not all that you canb rely on. You don't. **Demands have recently been placed on me, by yourself and others, that I ONLY deal in hard data. I am acquiescing to your demands. Naturally, my demands are the same as yours. Hard data is it. NOTHING else will be accepted. hard data for an exact number canot be had - just as it can't for rape (some rapes are uinreported), robbery (some robberies are not reported), etc. **Indeed. SOME rapes and SOME robberies are not reported. They are not included in any figures. Just as any DGUs which are not reported will not be included in any figures. So what we are left wtih is your bogus claim that there are only about 200 DGU's a year, which is so patently foolish that i am almost surprised you believe it (along with some other stupid things you have professed to believe). **OK, fine. Present your supplemental data. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/ . Warning shot turns deadly (AZ) . Man shot while trying to break into house, police say (LA) . Resident fires at 2 suspected of break-in (PA) . Store clerk's gunshot fatal to teen boy (MI) . Homeowner: Illegal entry was more than that (MI) . Drive-Through Shooting Leaves Would Be Robber Dead (CA) . Mobile home intruder met by gunfire (AK) . Robbery victim shoots attacker (South Africa) . Gun shop owner apprehends suspect during armed robbery (TX) . Prowler prompts man to fire gun (IN) . Fatal double shooting in Jacksonville ruled justifiable homicide (FL) . Jeweler gets best of robbers in gun fight (LA) . Gunman Shot By Store Clerks During Acampo Robbery (CA) . Robbery suspect killed at diner (TN) . Man kills burglar, police say (LA) . Police: Armed burglar killed by homeowner (TX) . Early Morning [Self-Defense] Shooting (FL) . Homeowner, 79, Not Charged For Shooting Intruders (KY) . Police say man was killed in self-defense (WI) . Intruder Shot To Death After Breaking Into Home (FL) . East Side Shooting Involved Earlier Assault, Vandalism (TX) . Man killed in neighborhood shootout (LA) . 79-Year-Old Shoots Two Intruders, Police Say (KY) . Merchant ends holdup, shoots robber (IN) . Suspect shot in head by liquor store owner (CO) . No charges for wife who shot and killed her husband (NY) . District attorney's office rules shooting was self-defense (NC) . Two people kidnap Coppell woman (TX) . Woman won't face charges in husband's death (SC) . Police: Burlington store owner shoots would-be burglar (NC) . Convenience store owner fatally shoots would-be armed robber (TX) . Police: Store Clerk Shoots Back At Robbers (NC) . Robber beaten with brolly, shot (South Africa) . Alleged Burglar Shot in East Montgomery (AL) . Teen Intruder Shot By Neighbor, Police Say (MS) . Man killed at Brooklyn Center apartment (MN) . Police arrest Bossier City shooting victim (LA) . Mother Fights Back Against Intruder (TX) . 911 calls reveal chaos in defensive shooting (CO) . Grand jury no-bills woman in shooting (TX) . 2 try to rob jewelry store; 1 suspect shot, still at large (AZ) . Jewelry Store Owner Grabs Gun, Chases Robber (MI) . Gun Battle Breaks Out Between Family, Intruders (TX) . Police: Homeowner shoots, kills intruder (TN) . BSP security guard outduels 3 robbers (Philippines) . One Man Dead, Another Arrested After Attempted Robbery (NC) . Florence robbers leave gun behind (FL) . No indictment in fatal [self-defense] shooting (KY) . Alleged Burglar Fired On (WA) **And again, I STILL don't know which years many of the events took place, as many of the links are broken. Perhaps you can break them down, year by year for me, as I can't see that data? We can then add your figures to the FBI ones and come up with a realistic figure for DGUs in the US, for the five years mentioned previously. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
#2
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
YO! Take your gun discussions back to your own newsgroup and
stop cross-posting to irrelevant groups. |
|
#3
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message .. . wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:18:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:47:41 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: wrote in message news
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:50:26 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"wrote: wrote in message news:97b5335g4r6u0vvp6ddmkegnpsbc54ur52@4ax .com... On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:22:58 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: snip **I supply the KNOWN DGUs. Really? **Yeah, really. Or do you mean you supply the DGU's that result in a death? **Nope. Then why are they on the FBI list? **Those are the DGUs we know about. If you can supply the KNOWN DGUs whcih did not result in death, for the years listed, then we will have more data. 'Till then, that is all we have. No, that is all you want to recognize. **Read my lips: If you provide verifiable DGUs where death did not result, for the years listed, we can include them. Until then, that is the only data available. No, information has been posted before about DGU's that you accepted - then later denied. **Nope. That is not true. However, humour me: Post it again. Perhaps my news service did not pick up your post. I can find no evidence of anyone posting DGUs, FOR THE YEARS I LISTED, other than the ones from the FBI. You have admitted before that DGU's occur that are not on ***YOUR*** 'list'. **Indeed. However, recent demands by yourself and others have forced me to revise my figures to reflect more accuracy. I have done so. No, the only acuracy is that you have is that death resulted in those DGU's. **Fine. Supply your supplemental data for the years I listed. Now, if you wish to ensure that my figures remain accurate, then YOU must supply accurate data also. After all, if you supply poor data, then you will just accuse me of promulgating inaccurate data. Neither of us wants that, do we? You have previously admitted that DGU's occur that do not result in death. **Indeed. We also know that some DGU's are not reported to centralized databases such as the FBI. **Possibly. I don't know if that is the case or not. LOL What happened to 'honest' debate trevorboy? **I'll answer that in the only way possible: Do you know, for absolute certain, that all DGUs (which are reported to local authorities) are not also reported to the FBI? I sure as Hell don't know. I don't have any idea how much (or how little) information the FBI gathers each year. Do you have some inside information to impart? I know for a fact that all of the DGU's claimed by gun nuts ARE NOT reported to the FBI. Many of the "researchers" into DGUs, like Kleck, get their data from telephone surveys. I have seen reports from these "surveys" of anywhere from 2.5 million to 5 million DGUs per annum. %he high number is higher than the violent crime rate, indicating that more than half of the violent crimes in this country go unreported --- not reasonable. DOJ numbers are in the tens of thousands, and the last report I saw from them estimates the number at fewer than 100,000, all told (projection from reports). But is must be remembered that a DGU is in the eye of the gun loon. That is, NO THIRD PARTY verification of the incident is available for the vast majority of these incidents. We have no idea whether or not the other party wa armed (he ran away), had bad intentions (he ran away), or was even aware that the DGUser even existed. Yhe fact that very, vrey few gun battless ensue tends toindicate that the other party was not armed. Kleck's reported survey showed more than half of the incidents the "DGUser" was in fact the aggressor, reacting to a percieved threat before any overt action was needed (mostly brandishing). Larry There are many, many credible studies that give varying figures - you reject those because you maintain they are not 'hard data'. **Of course. Many of those sources contain figures which are from very poorly executed surveys. Hard data is all we can rely upon to ascertain the truth. "Many" - then by your admission not all fit your category. **Indeed. All the surveys I've examined are faulty in some way. And no, hard data is not all that you canb rely on. You don't. **Demands have recently been placed on me, by yourself and others, that I ONLY deal in hard data. I am acquiescing to your demands. Naturally, my demands are the same as yours. Hard data is it. NOTHING else will be accepted. hard data for an exact number canot be had - just as it can't for rape (some rapes are uinreported), robbery (some robberies are not reported), etc. **Indeed. SOME rapes and SOME robberies are not reported. They are not included in any figures. Just as any DGUs which are not reported will not be included in any figures. So what we are left wtih is your bogus claim that there are only about 200 DGU's a year, which is so patently foolish that i am almost surprised you believe it (along with some other stupid things you have professed to believe). **OK, fine. Present your supplemental data. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/ . Warning shot turns deadly (AZ) . Man shot while trying to break into house, police say (LA) . Resident fires at 2 suspected of break-in (PA) . Store clerk's gunshot fatal to teen boy (MI) . Homeowner: Illegal entry was more than that (MI) . Drive-Through Shooting Leaves Would Be Robber Dead (CA) . Mobile home intruder met by gunfire (AK) . Robbery victim shoots attacker (South Africa) . Gun shop owner apprehends suspect during armed robbery (TX) . Prowler prompts man to fire gun (IN) . Fatal double shooting in Jacksonville ruled justifiable homicide (FL) . Jeweler gets best of robbers in gun fight (LA) . Gunman Shot By Store Clerks During Acampo Robbery (CA) . Robbery suspect killed at diner (TN) . Man kills burglar, police say (LA) . Police: Armed burglar killed by homeowner (TX) . Early Morning [Self-Defense] Shooting (FL) . Homeowner, 79, Not Charged For Shooting Intruders (KY) . Police say man was killed in self-defense (WI) . Intruder Shot To Death After Breaking Into Home (FL) . East Side Shooting Involved Earlier Assault, Vandalism (TX) . Man killed in neighborhood shootout (LA) . 79-Year-Old Shoots Two Intruders, Police Say (KY) . Merchant ends holdup, shoots robber (IN) . Suspect shot in head by liquor store owner (CO) . No charges for wife who shot and killed her husband (NY) . District attorney's office rules shooting was self-defense (NC) . Two people kidnap Coppell woman (TX) . Woman won't face charges in husband's death (SC) . Police: Burlington store owner shoots would-be burglar (NC) . Convenience store owner fatally shoots would-be armed robber (TX) . Police: Store Clerk Shoots Back At Robbers (NC) . Robber beaten with brolly, shot (South Africa) . Alleged Burglar Shot in East Montgomery (AL) . Teen Intruder Shot By Neighbor, Police Say (MS) . Man killed at Brooklyn Center apartment (MN) . Police arrest Bossier City shooting victim (LA) . Mother Fights Back Against Intruder (TX) . 911 calls reveal chaos in defensive shooting (CO) . Grand jury no-bills woman in shooting (TX) . 2 try to rob jewelry store; 1 suspect shot, still at large (AZ) . Jewelry Store Owner Grabs Gun, Chases Robber (MI) . Gun Battle Breaks Out Between Family, Intruders (TX) . Police: Homeowner shoots, kills intruder (TN) . BSP security guard outduels 3 robbers (Philippines) . One Man Dead, Another Arrested After Attempted Robbery (NC) . Florence robbers leave gun behind (FL) . No indictment in fatal [self-defense] shooting (KY) . Alleged Burglar Fired On (WA) **And again, I STILL don't know which years many of the events took place, as many of the links are broken. Perhaps you can break them down, year by year for me, as I can't see that data? We can then add your figures to the FBI ones and come up with a realistic figure for DGUs in the US, for the five years mentioned previously. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
#4
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:
The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#5
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
|
|
#7
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
|
|
#8
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:03:44 +0100, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2007 06:04:58 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Is it "unconstitutional" to do anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Is running a car unconstitutional? Owning a computer? Space flight? Don't take that as a vote for gun ownership though. Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose. 10th Amendment. Please indicate which specific enumeration of power would allow such a ban. (Assuming the 2nd isn't a protection) |
|
#9
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On Fri, 04 May 2007 08:16:42 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:03:44 +0100, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2007 06:04:58 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Is it "unconstitutional" to do anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Is running a car unconstitutional? Owning a computer? Space flight? Don't take that as a vote for gun ownership though. Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose. Where does the Second amendment say exactly what you are inferring. Be specific and take all the screens you need. |
|
#10
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Well, what it does mean is that the government would be within its constitutional rights to ban gun ownership for any other purpose. The Righs DO NOT COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. They are PROTECTED by the government. Go back and read it again until you understand it. Perhaps you missed the meaning of a word we don't commonly use anymore... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights |
|
#11
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 May 2007 06:04:58 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Is it "unconstitutional" to do anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Is running a car unconstitutional? Owning a computer? Space flight? Don't take that as a vote for gun ownership though. One wonders if he is an anything not allowed is prohibited sort of guy? |
|
#12
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to me. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists? Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the 2nd did not apply. That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general population. |
|
#13
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to me. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists? I'm thinking of 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. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the 2nd did not apply. That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general population. I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#14
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
|
|
#15
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to me. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists? I'm thinking of 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. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the 2nd did not apply. That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general population. I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong. Here is an article you may be interested in reading then: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ? That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus." A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise. Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field. He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award. That sounds like an expert to me. After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter: "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text. "The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded: "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance." After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity): [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia. "In reply to your numbered questions: [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?" [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people." [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?" [Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia." [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?" [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence." [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?" [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia." [Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?" [Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military." [Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated." [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.' [Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence, "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.' "My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, "(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and "(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?" [Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. "(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation." Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion." So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right. As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power. And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing. it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ? Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ? (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved. About the Author J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems. Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments. J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address: PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV -- |
|
#16
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
|
|
#17
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to me. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists? I'm thinking of 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. So am I. Now present your analysis as requested. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the 2nd did not apply. That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general population. I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong. I'll give you a hint. There isn't one. Indeed the entire BOR was considered by some to be unnecessary and redundant since none of the items protected were able to be violated by the federal government since they had no authority or enumerated power to do so. Many others felt that codifying that and confirming the federal government had no such authority or power was a good idea.....they were right as events have proven. |
|
#18
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA P
|
|
#19
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000lives in USA PER ANNUM
Don Pearce wrote:
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. d Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is reserved for ordinary law. Amendments are to be interpreted as a restriction on the powers of government. The standalone sentence at the last is self-sufficient enough that there will always be people who read it that way. That's the "the right... shall not be infringed" part. The "embarrassing second" is one a' those things, though... -- Les Cargill |
|
#20
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... Don Pearce wrote: On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. d Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is reserved for ordinary law. Amendments are to be interpreted as a restriction on the powers of government. The standalone sentence at the last is self-sufficient enough that there will always be people who read it that way. That's the "the right... shall not be infringed" part. The "embarrassing second" is one a' those things, though... It's only "embarrassing" to those with reading comprehension issues and agendas |
|
#21
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... Don Pearce wrote: On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. d Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is reserved for ordinary law. **Really? Please explain, in as much detail as you feel necessary, the 18th Amendment. You may also care to explain the 16th and 13th Amendments too. It would seem that those Amendments do (or did) place restrictions on people. Amendments are to be interpreted as a restriction on the powers of government. **Some are. Some are not. The standalone sentence at the last is self-sufficient enough that there will always be people who read it that way. That's the "the right... shall not be infringed" part. **Don't forget that pesky "well regulated militia" part. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
#22
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message .. . "Les Cargill" wrote in message ... Don Pearce wrote: On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote: The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be ignored. Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. d Amendments cannot be interpreted as a restriction on people - that is reserved for ordinary law. **Really? Please explain, in as much detail as you feel necessary, the 18th Amendment. It authorized government to prevent the manufacture, sale or transportation of alcohol. It did not stop anyone from having or consuming whatever they had. I fail to see where people were restricted. You may also care to explain the 16th Changed the manner in which taxes were collected. Nothing more. I fail to see where people were restricted. and 13th Amendments too. Authorized the government to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude except for crime. I fail to see where people were restricted. It would seem that those Amendments do (or did) place restrictions on people. Then feel free to point out the restrictions you feel were implaced. |
|
#23
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? In what way do you imgaine that the phrase "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." does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed ? The intent is very clear Try to parse the following "A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read would have the right to keep and read books ? Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO THAT THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ? Which comes first bub ? Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next time |
|
#24
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? In what way do you imgaine that the phrase "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." does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed ? The intent is very clear Try to parse the following "A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read would have the right to keep and read books ? Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO THAT THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ? Which comes first bub ? Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next time I notice that you stick with the "first draft" punctuation, which was changed in order to clarify the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And of course your analogy fails hopelessly. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#25
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? In what way do you imgaine that the phrase "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." does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed ? The intent is very clear Try to parse the following "A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read would have the right to keep and read books ? Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO THAT THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ? Which comes first bub ? Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next time I notice that you stick with the "first draft" punctuation, which was changed in order to clarify the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And of course your analogy fails hopelessly. Actually, copies of the 2nd exist with 2, 3 and even 4 commas. The most common are the 3 and 4 variety and the presence of the commas doesn't alter the meaning that exists. |
|
#26
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? In what way do you imgaine that the phrase "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." does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed ? The intent is very clear Try to parse the following "A well read population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." Would you suggest that ONLY that part of the population that is well-read would have the right to keep and read books ? Or is it ALL the people who have a right to keep and read books SO THAT THEY WOULD BE a well-read population ? Which comes first bub ? Try to put the horse BEFORE the cart and not the other way around the next time I notice that you stick with the "first draft" punctuation, which was changed in order to clarify the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And of course your analogy fails hopelessly. BZZZT WRONG AGAIN From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution +++++++++++++++++++++++++ + The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads: + + "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 copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, + had different capitalization and punctuation: + + "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." + + BOTH VERSIONS are COMMONLY USED in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. + The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved + by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert, + and hangs in the National Archives. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ As IF that changes ANYTHING to the meaning of the 2nd ? As IF it changes the fact that the first part is a JUSTIFICATION and NOT a RESTRCITION the second part CLEARLY declares that it's an INDIVIDUAL right that has NOTHING to do with a militia Don't you just hate being so CONSISTENTLY WRONG ? Don't you just hate so CONSISTENTLY demonstrating your IGNORANCE ? Isn't it time you do something about it ? How about EDUCATING yourself BEFORE you spout more ignorant cant ? |
|
#27
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote: Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? In what way do you imgaine that the phrase "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." does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed ? Just want to make the point that if you accept the third comma (the version ratified by the states, the original not having the comma), the meaning is technically that a well regulated militia (no hyphen and militia not capitalized in that version, for what it's worth) shall not be infringed, because you can remove the two dependant clauses and it becomes an independent clause, whereas the other two are *not* independant clauses (try making a complete sentence out of these phrases "being necessary to the security of a free State" or "the right of the people (either capitalized or not depending on th version) to keep and bear arms". You can't do it. If you remove that third comma, as in the version finally ratified by the states, then you *could* make the case that the phrase "the right of the People (this word not being capitalized in the first version) to keep and bear arms (not capitalized in this version) shall not be infringed" becomes an independent clause on its own. This is all proof that a. the Framers were inconsistent in their grammar, and b. the amendment can be interpreted two different ways and technically, if you wanted to be really anal, you could make the case that the states ratified something that was never passed by the House and the Senate and might not even be valid in the first place. Ironic, eh? |
|
#28
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" wrote: Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? In what way do you imgaine that the phrase "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." does NOT clearly state, that it's the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed ? Just want to make the point that if you accept the third comma (the version ratified by the states, the original not having the comma), the meaning is technically that a well regulated militia (no hyphen and militia not capitalized in that version, for what it's worth) shall not be infringed, because you can remove the two dependant clauses and it becomes an independent clause, whereas the other two are *not* independant clauses (try making a complete sentence out of these phrases "being necessary to the security of a free State" or "the right of the people (either capitalized or not depending on th version) to keep and bear arms". You can't do it. If you remove that third comma, as in the version finally ratified by the states, then you *could* make the case that the phrase "the right of the People (this word not being capitalized in the first version) to keep and bear arms (not capitalized in this version) shall not be infringed" becomes an independent clause on its own. This is all proof that a. the Framers were inconsistent in their grammar, and b. the amendment can be interpreted two different ways and technically, if you wanted to be really anal, you could make the case that the states ratified something that was never passed by the House and the Senate and might not even be valid in the first place. Ironic, eh? Wank, wank,wank TOTAL BULL**** You're trying to bugger flies (and you're not even competent enough to do even that passably) I posted a link erlier today that demonstrates the about to be TOTAL CRAP Go back and READ those links BEFORE you come back to spout more ignorant cant What the hell, you're probably too stupid to even do that From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution +++++++++++++++++++++++++ + The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads: + + "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 copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, + had different capitalization and punctuation: + + "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." + + BOTH VERSIONS are COMMONLY USED in OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS. + The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved + by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert, + and hangs in the National Archives. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ As IF that changes ANYTHING to the meaning of the 2nd ? As IF it changes the fact that the first part is a JUSTIFICATION and NOT a RESTRICTION the second part CLEARLY declares that it's an INDIVIDUAL right that has NOTHING to do with a militia Don't you just hate being so CONSISTENTLY WRONG ? Don't you just hate so CONSISTENTLY demonstrating your IGNORANCE ? Isn't it time you do something about it ? How about EDUCATING yourself BEFORE you spout more ignorant cant ? |
|
#29
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? Before I leave you alone, just thought I'd highlight this rather strange insult, coming from you, of course. BTW, just to show that you are a liar, since you are thowing the epithet out, you said this: "2) It was NOT a discussion about the Presidential Oath It was ALWAYS about the Pledge of Allegiance' ummmm: The worst of them all was that paragon (as I'm sure some here will see him) Senator Joe McCarthy. Among his other pleasant acts he had the "under God" bit put in the oath. Everybody since the founding of your country has failed to live up to the aspirations of the founders. Once again YOU demonstrate your ignorance http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer." http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499 I guess the fact that English is pretty far down the totem pole in your list of languages as confused you about the difference between "the oath" and "the Pledge". |
|
#30
Posted to alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.audio.opinion,talk.politics.guns,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gun Laws save 2,500 lives in Australia / No gun laws kills 15,000 lives in USA PER ANNUM
"dave weil" wrote in message news  On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:24:25 -0500, "SaPeIsMa" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self defence. It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an armed militia. Any other use of a gun is unconstitutional. English not your first language ? Before I leave you alone, just thought I'd highlight this rather strange insult, coming from you, of course. BTW, just to show that you are a liar, since you are thowing the epithet out, you said this: "2) It was NOT a discussion about the Presidential Oath It was ALWAYS about the Pledge of Allegiance' ummmm: I see once again that YOU cannot support your claim QED The worst of them all was that paragon (as I'm sure some here will see him) Senator Joe McCarthy. Among his other pleasant acts he had the "under God" bit put in the oath. Everybody since the founding of your country has failed to live up to the aspirations of the founders. Once again YOU demonstrate your ignorance http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm "In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer." http://www.slate.com/?id=2067499 I guess the fact that English is pretty far down the totem pole in your list of languages as confused you about the difference between "the oath" and "the Pledge". Show us the alleged Oath that was modified to include "under god" |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Do the Thiele-Small laws move design quality differences over to the drivers? | Tech | |||
| * Do the unwritten laws of EQ-ing allow this? | Pro Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
