[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:33:21 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:44:28 GMT, wrote:

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.

If only the Constitution had been written by English teachers
chuckle.

He made a big mistake in his anaylsis though. In trying to prove that
the sentence was unconditional, he assumed a state of unconditionality
in the beginning as part of his argument.

Big no-no.

I wonder how a British language expert would weigh in though, since
"American useage" was still in its infancy and they were far more
British than current day American. I think that everyone agrees that,
in terms of an Americanism, it's deficient. I wonder if it falls under
an acceptable British construction (I highly doubt it). Chances are,
it's just a poorly-worded sentence.

Maybe I'll watch some Masterpiece Theare and see if anything similar
comes up g.

Well, I think we need to assume that - badly worded or not - they
didn't put the stuff about a militia in there because they thought the
document was looking a bit thin. It was there because it mattered.


yes
It's called a JUSTIFICATION
You can look up the meaning here
http://m-w.com/dictionary/justification

Notice that justification is NOT a RESTRICTION
You can look up that meaning here
http://m-w.com/dictionary/restriction

And as for a language expert weighing in on the issue
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

And here's an analysis that blows your orginal claim right out of the
water
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-...e.asp?aid=3230

And I like in particular the last paragraph, which goes:
"Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated
by the high correlation between the number of years a person
has attended school and his inability to understand the words
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
It is more likely, though, that those who interpret the Second
Amendment
to preclude an individual right to own guns are driven by their
political agenda.
Whichever the case, they do themselves no credit when they tell us
that a simple, elegant sentence means the opposite of what it clearly
says."


Gosh! Genuine Orwellian doublespeak. Nice piece of research.



Do you even know what "Orwellian doublespeak" is ?
But do demonstrate where it is above
I'm always ready to laugh at your expense

And this is not "research" bub
This is the basic stuff you should have studied up on BEFORE you came
here to spout your ignorant cant.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:06:07 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

It always HAS been partially ignored, modified as necessary.

Yea, when it directly threatens or harms another without just cause. So
where is your comparable condition?

How about 8,000-plus gun murders a year? At least libel and slander
*usually* don't end up in dead people.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:37:43 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

The founders had Judeo-Christian Morals and Ethics as the basis of the
Constitution

JUDEO-Christian? Come, now. That's a very modern bit of
political-correctness, only useful in defining the gang who don't like
Muslims.

Really ?
Just because it did NOT have that label a few years back to describe it,
does NOT mean that the label is incorrect
And the gang who don't like muslims are the ones who have realized that the
muslims ARE and HAVE BEEN been at war with ANYTHING NON-muslims since
Mohammed started his little cult.
You sticking your head up your ass in denial changes NOTHING about the
history that is EVIDENT where you smart enough to study it

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:07:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Not particularly. But that seems a valid reading of what the
constitution wants.

Only if you ignore the language and meaning of what is written.

For example....how do you manage to pervert the meaning of "the people" to
mean just "the militia" and how do you pervert that to mean "the
military"?

You've got it the wrong way round.

Really? You haven't try to assert that the militia is the one with the right
and not the people. Odd, I seem to recall you making that sort of assertion.
Then claiming the militia included the military. I seem to recall another
claim like that too.

They wanted a well-regulated
militia, so it was necessary to allow the people to own guns.

Thank you. The people own the guns. Not the militia. Not just those in the
militia. The people owned the guns. All the people could own guns.

The
people WERE the militia.

Cite please. I am unaware of any claim that the militia included all of the
people.

Remember "people" only meant adult white
Christian men.

Not true. Women had rights too.

That was implicit in the mores of the era. If full
rights were intended for anyone else, there was a notable failure to
even attempt implementing the policy :-)

And yet that policy has been implemented.

I still haven't seen where you establish the militia means the same as the
people.

Further let's assume you do.

So what?

The right still clearly was intended to belong to the people, and redefining
the meaning of the militia doesn't alter that. Further, the militia still
exists and includes considerably more people that your limited claims allow.

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:59:33 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Did he make ANY denial that the government was democratically elected ?
There is a difference between a Parliamentary Goverment and a
Constitutional
Republic
For one thing, unlike the government of the UK, the Republic in the US was
built up based on a document called a Constitution.
In the UK, the government was built down from a monarchy

In the UK the monarch is a moderating infulence that denies absolute
power to the government. In America you can cite the constitution. In
practice both give an essentially civilised society a flag to salute.
But neither prevent either government or executive from doing anything
they may consider expedient.

Thus the need for the people to retain arms.

Thanks for establishing the need for the 2nd Amendment and the fact that it
must apply to the people if they are to retain, defend, secure and/or
restore the free state from such oppression.

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:04:31 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

pearce is making the classic mistake of using the current meaning of
"well-regulated" instead of the meaning in the late 18th Century
In those days "well regulated" meant "properly functionning" and not "well
defined and controlled by laws and regulations"

When it comes to organising an armed militia, where's the distinction?

One that can function properly. Some are oganized by government, more or
less, others are organized by civil organizations, more or less, yet others
are organized by themselves, more or less.

Ultimately the test is can they preform those militia duties for which they
have established and organized themselves to preform. If they can then they
are well regulated. If not, then they are not. Governmental mandates is just
a means to accomplish this, not the objective.


We're a mobile society. You want one town where you're shot at for
wearing a white hat, the next town for wearing a black one?

And yet I can be arrested for something in one place that is legal in
another, and can potentially be shot at as a result..

So what's your point? That laws vary? We already know that.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:59:59 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Don Pearce wrote:

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

d


Read the first amendment, it says congress may not establish a
religion. "Established religion" had a very specific meaning to the
writers of the constitution, one where the clergy were directly
supported by the government, and in some cases were government
officers. They did not exclude religion from the government, just
making _one_ religion preminent. Note especially the "free exercise
thereof" clause.

Jerry

But the purpose of this amendment was to prevent any religion from
gaining a foothold within government. There were good reasons for this
- they did not want to import a huge amount of bigoted unpleasantness
from Europe. Bush has totally gone against the spirit of this
amendment by involving the Christian ministry at the heart of his
government. The purpose of this amendment was as much "freedom from"
as "freedom of" religion.


So do tell us where Bush has gone against the spirit of the amendment
Take as many screens as you need

And by the way, why don't you go read the second inaugural speech of
Eisenhower
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres55.html
2nd paragraph
"Before all else, we seek, upon our common labor as a nation,
the blessings of Almighty God.
And the hopes in our hearts fashion the deepest prayers of our whole
people."
3rd to last paragraph
"And so the prayer of our people carries far beyond our own frontiers,
to the wide world of our duty and our destiny."

Look at Kennedy's Inagural speech
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html
1st paragraph
"...For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath
our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago."
2n paragraph
"..the belief that the rights of man come not from
the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
last paragraph
"..asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth
God's work must truly be our own."

In what was is this any different from what Bush may have done ?




This is because they were peasant-brained men, who had superstition at
the heart of their reasoning.
So the only way you can rebut is to call them names
What a non-surprise
I'm not sure which surpasses the other ?
Your ignorance or your stupidity ?
But they're both fighting real hard to be in the lead

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

Neither has any reference that McCarthy was more involved than anyone else
to add the "under God" bit
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE to support your claim ?
Or is it just another little piece of ignorant propaganda your swallowed
whole ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 May 2007 23:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

So do tell us where Bush has gone against the spirit of the amendment
Take as many screens as you need

One moment you're minutely parsing the language, now you think you can
define the "spirit". Are you sure you'er studying the evidence?
Sounds more like you're merely justifing a belief.

I'm not justifying ANYTHING
I asking the poster to support the claim
Clearly he wans't able to do it
Instead he tried to make some other spurious claim

Too bad your skills in the Queen's English are so limited that you have
trouble following

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:38:59 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

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

Neither has any reference that McCarthy was more involved than anyone else
to add the "under God" bit
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE to support your claim ?
Or is it just another little piece of ignorant propaganda your swallowed
whole ?


Go do some digging for yourself. In the meantime here's a snippet.

___________________

Overview:

Between 1924 and 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was worded:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, during the McCarthy era and communism scare, Congress passed
a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words "under God." The
current Pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge is recited, on average, tens of millions of times a day --
largely by students in schools across America.

On 2002-JUN-26, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals voted 2 to 1 to declare the Pledge unconstitutional because of
the addition of the phrase "under God." This decision only affects the
states of AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA. However, the ruling
will only take effect if it is upheld on appeal. The decision may be
appealed to the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court, or to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

It is interesting to note that this decision happened to occur one day
after the 40th anniversary of the Engel v. Vitale decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of
state-sponsored school prayer as a part of instruction in public
schools. The Texas Justice Foundation had declared that anniversary a
day of mourning. 1,2

___________________

Of course there may be many creatures that swim, fly, have beaks and
go "quack". But when I see one, I'm going to call it a duck,

Want another aphorism? "Hear hoof beats, expect horses, not zebras".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 00:04:31 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Scout" wrote in message
news:U8O_h.213$wy2.157@trnddc03...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:41:13 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:37:25 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

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.

Yeah. The more you look at it, the more you see. They want the State
to be secure. No mention of the people having security FROM the
State.

The intention is State security against outside agression. The means
is a citizen's militia. A "well regulated" one. Regulated by who?
Presumably the elected government. Thats what governments do,
regulate things. If you don't WANT regulation, fine. But the
constitution demands it.


Where does it demand regulation or does it infer that it would be
a good thing?

The words "well regulated" may be a clue.

Only if your presumption is correct. Is it?



pearce is making the classic mistake of using the current meaning of
"well-regulated" instead of the meaning in the late 18th Century
In those days "well regulated" meant "properly functionning" and not "well
defined and controlled by laws and regulations"


Then may I counter that by saying y'all are making the classic mistake
of believing that "bear arms" means carry a gun. It doesn't. By the
original definition. you can bear arms with a sword, a sharp stick, a
club - all sorts of things. So why do you all insist that it be a gun?


Who ever denied that swords as well as ANY OTHER PERSONAL weapon fall under
the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
Have you hear of ANY legislation intended to restrict knives or pointed
sticks ?
The issue is that currently guns are the BEST of the BUNCH that are
protected by the RKBA
And that's what the hoplophobes want to infringe on

Is it by any chance linked with the ridiculous culture of machismo
that permeates Hollywood films?


No your ignorant argument is based on the "cult of ignorance" that is so
prevalent amongst gun-controllers




I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.


It wasn't mind-numbing ignorance that caused either Columbine or Virginia
Tech
It was MENTAL ILNESS
But thanks once again for demonstrating that the mind-numbing stupidity of
the hoplophobes makes them completely MISS the REAL REASONS for such
aberrations

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:24:17 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.


It wasn't mind-numbing ignorance that caused either Columbine or Virginia
Tech
It was MENTAL ILNESS
But thanks once again for demonstrating that the mind-numbing stupidity of
the hoplophobes makes them completely MISS the REAL REASONS for such
aberrations


It was the mind-numbing ignorance of the simple fact that if the
mentally ill can't get hold of guns, they can't shoot anybody that
caused those two tragedies.

As I have said, you can't legislate against mental illness, but you
can legislate against guns.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 09:33:49 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

Yep, in both cases we told people they couldn't have guns there, and the
only ones that did were the criminals.



Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun. You can't
legislate against craziness; you can legislate against guns. Do the
maths.


What math ?
The "maths"(sic) one where disarming the law-abiding and making them
defenseless against the crazies and the criminal is a strategy that only
creates MORE victims ?
The "maths"(sic) where the law-abiding CAN and DO defend themselves far more
often with guns than the occasional "crazy" goes out and kills and injures
FAR LESS PEOPLE ?
The "maths"(sic) where it has been shown over and over that such gun-control
does NOT WORK ?
The "maths"(sic) where such gun-control is a slippery slope that leads to
even more intrusive freedom denying "controls" in the future ?

Yeah
We done all that "maths"(sic).
We've dont that "maths"(sic) over and over and over.
And we keep getting the same negative results that show us that such
prohibitions do NOT stop the "crazys" from doint their "crazy" thing
All we get is that it's stupid to disarm amd make people defenseless because
of the behavior of a minorty.


The VT guy bought his guns legitimately in a shop. If he was unable to
do that, VT would not have happened.


Not true
He lied on his 4473. And that made his purchase an ILLEGAL one
It only shows that prohibition does NOT work
There is ALWAYS a way to get around a prohibition for those who want to
do so
We've done the "maths"(sic) on that one too

And in ALL cases, we have shown that you are wrong
Maybe you need to lear to do a different "maths"(sic), one based on FACTS,
so that you can come up with the RIGHT answers the next time

[SaPeIsMa]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 May 2007 22:01:46 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:31:12 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:02 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

In rec.audio.pro Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dsldotpipexdotcom wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:49:17 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

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.

Surely the American government restricts gun ownership in certain
cases? Convicted criminals, incomptent people, etc.?

Anyway, they need to do what's right, not hide behind the
constitution. It isn't Holy Writ.

Using that argument allows the government to do _anything_ it wants
to, that's why there is a constitution.

It already has by introducing religion to the heart of government.
That was specifically excluded by the founding fathers.

Where? Show us where in the Constitution it says that there
shall be no religion. It says that there "shall be no law respecting
an establishment of religion". In other words there shall be no
government mandated state religion like the King established the only
one religion that could be practiced and that all others would be
persecuted.

That will do for me.



What you mean is that your ignorance was shown up again.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:29:37 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

JUDEO-Christian? Come, now. That's a very modern bit of
political-correctness, only useful in defining the gang who don't like
Muslims.

Really ?
Just because it did NOT have that label a few years back to describe it,
does NOT mean that the label is incorrect
And the gang who don't like muslims are the ones who have realized that the
muslims ARE and HAVE BEEN been at war with ANYTHING NON-muslims since
Mohammed started his little cult.
You sticking your head up your ass in denial changes NOTHING about the
history that is EVIDENT where you smart enough to study it

Getting riled? Another couple of posts, you'll be ALL upper-case :-)
Thank God there isn't a gun handy.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:36:58 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Ultimately the test is can they preform those militia duties for which they
have established and organized themselves to preform. If they can then they
are well regulated. If not, then they are not. Governmental mandates is just
a means to accomplish this, not the objective.

A lynch mob can be well-organised and effective. Who shall we lynch
today?

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

What you mean is that your ignorance was shown up again.


The USA was founded as a secular country, with freedom of religion for
all. Since 1954, by government legislation, every American citizen is
required to repeat an oath of allegiance which contains the words
"under God". In other words religion (and a single specific one, at
that) by government decree.

Are you really so dim that you can't see that this is a direct
violation of one of the fundamental tenets of your constitution?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:24:17 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.


It wasn't mind-numbing ignorance that caused either Columbine or Virginia
Tech
It was MENTAL ILNESS
But thanks once again for demonstrating that the mind-numbing stupidity of
the hoplophobes makes them completely MISS the REAL REASONS for such
aberrations


It was the mind-numbing ignorance of the simple fact that if the
mentally ill can't get hold of guns, they can't shoot anybody that
caused those two tragedies.

However, if they stabbed, ran over, blew up, gassed or burned those people
to death then everything would still be right with the world because those
people weren't shot???

Sorry, the problem is having people who desire to kill and providing them an
unprotected population upon which to act.


As I have said, you can't legislate against mental illness, but you
can legislate against guns.

Which does nothing but disarm the victims. As VT showed.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:46:50 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 09:33:49 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

Yep, in both cases we told people they couldn't have guns there, and the
only ones that did were the criminals.



Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun. You can't
legislate against craziness; you can legislate against guns. Do the
maths.


What math ?
The "maths"(sic) one where disarming the law-abiding and making them
defenseless against the crazies and the criminal is a strategy that only
creates MORE victims ?
The "maths"(sic) where the law-abiding CAN and DO defend themselves far more
often with guns than the occasional "crazy" goes out and kills and injures
FAR LESS PEOPLE ?
The "maths"(sic) where it has been shown over and over that such gun-control
does NOT WORK ?
The "maths"(sic) where such gun-control is a slippery slope that leads to
even more intrusive freedom denying "controls" in the future ?

Yeah
We done all that "maths"(sic).
We've dont that "maths"(sic) over and over and over.
And we keep getting the same negative results that show us that such
prohibitions do NOT stop the "crazys" from doint their "crazy" thing
All we get is that it's stupid to disarm amd make people defenseless because
of the behavior of a minorty.


Living in a country where I am free to go about my daily life without
the fear that some gun-toting crazy may be just a few feet away (and
that is starting to look awfully much like you), I can tell you from
personal experience that you have it entirely wrong.


The VT guy bought his guns legitimately in a shop. If he was unable to
do that, VT would not have happened.


Not true
He lied on his 4473. And that made his purchase an ILLEGAL one
It only shows that prohibition does NOT work

Don't be an idiot. If there were no gun shops (that sell guns, you
understand) he could not have bought a gun. It is the legality of gun
ownership that allowed him to buy one, even if he personally committed
an illegal act while doing so. In the UK he simply could not have
bought the gun. End.

There is ALWAYS a way to get around a prohibition for those who want to
do so
We've done the "maths"(sic) on that one too

And in ALL cases, we have shown that you are wrong
Maybe you need to lear to do a different "maths"(sic), one based on FACTS,
so that you can come up with the RIGHT answers the next time


Why are you putting (sic) after maths? That is the correct spelling;
it is a contraction of mathematics. Since this is a singular noun that
ends in an "s", the "s" has been retained in the abbreviation.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:03:19 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:24:17 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.


It wasn't mind-numbing ignorance that caused either Columbine or Virginia
Tech
It was MENTAL ILNESS
But thanks once again for demonstrating that the mind-numbing stupidity of
the hoplophobes makes them completely MISS the REAL REASONS for such
aberrations


It was the mind-numbing ignorance of the simple fact that if the
mentally ill can't get hold of guns, they can't shoot anybody that
caused those two tragedies.

However, if they stabbed, ran over, blew up, gassed or burned those people
to death then everything would still be right with the world because those
people weren't shot???

Sorry, the problem is having people who desire to kill and providing them an
unprotected population upon which to act.


Crazies will always do crazy things. What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before he
had done too much harm. Guns are far more indiscriminate, and all he
has to do is stand in the doorway of a classroom and spray it around -
as he did. Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?


As I have said, you can't legislate against mental illness, but you
can legislate against guns.

Which does nothing but disarm the victims. As VT showed.


So now you want to arm children at school. Is there no end to your
idiocy?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

What you mean is that your ignorance was shown up again.


The USA was founded as a secular country, with freedom of religion for
all. Since 1954, by government legislation, every American citizen is
required to repeat an oath of allegiance which contains the words
"under God".

Please indicate the legal statute that mandates you to repeat that
particular oath.

In other words religion (and a single specific one, at
that) by government decree.

Really? So tell me which SPECIFIC religion is the only one that recognizes
God?

I can think of several right off the top of my head.

Are you really so dim that you can't see that this is a direct
violation of one of the fundamental tenets of your constitution?

Nope, because they did NOT establish such a religion they are simply engaged
in the free exercise of, which I do believe the 1st specifically states is a
right.

[dave weil]

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?

[Scout]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 13:36:58 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Ultimately the test is can they preform those militia duties for which
they
have established and organized themselves to preform. If they can then
they
are well regulated. If not, then they are not. Governmental mandates is
just
a means to accomplish this, not the objective.

A lynch mob can be well-organised and effective.

No, a lynch mob by definition is not well organized.

However, let's assume they are well regulated as set forth. What's your
point? That organized groups can engage in wrongful acts? Governments do it
all the time, so how is that any different? Because one group acts
wrongfully doesn't make it universal nor does it refute the point made.

Who shall we lynch
today?

Well how about those who can't deal with the issue and have to keep trying
to change the subject?

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:46:50 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 09:33:49 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.

Yep, in both cases we told people they couldn't have guns there, and the
only ones that did were the criminals.



Look. To have a VT or Columbine you need two things. You need somebody
who has gone crazy, and you need ready access to a gun. You can't
legislate against craziness; you can legislate against guns. Do the
maths.


What math ?
The "maths"(sic) one where disarming the law-abiding and making them
defenseless against the crazies and the criminal is a strategy that only
creates MORE victims ?
The "maths"(sic) where the law-abiding CAN and DO defend themselves far
more
often with guns than the occasional "crazy" goes out and kills and injures
FAR LESS PEOPLE ?
The "maths"(sic) where it has been shown over and over that such
gun-control
does NOT WORK ?
The "maths"(sic) where such gun-control is a slippery slope that leads to
even more intrusive freedom denying "controls" in the future ?

Yeah
We done all that "maths"(sic).
We've dont that "maths"(sic) over and over and over.
And we keep getting the same negative results that show us that such
prohibitions do NOT stop the "crazys" from doint their "crazy" thing
All we get is that it's stupid to disarm amd make people defenseless
because
of the behavior of a minorty.


Living in a country where I am free to go about my daily life without
the fear that some gun-toting crazy may be just a few feet away (and
that is starting to look awfully much like you),

Please indicate for my which country currently exists which has NO illegal
guns held by criminals.

One tends to think you are speaking rhetoric rather than facts.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:09:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

What you mean is that your ignorance was shown up again.


The USA was founded as a secular country, with freedom of religion for
all. Since 1954, by government legislation, every American citizen is
required to repeat an oath of allegiance which contains the words
"under God".

Please indicate the legal statute that mandates you to repeat that
particular oath.

It starts every school day.

In other words religion (and a single specific one, at
that) by government decree.

Really? So tell me which SPECIFIC religion is the only one that recognizes
God?

I can think of several right off the top of my head.


It was written in by Catholics, so that is the god it refers to. Had
it said "under one or several gods" then you could plead generality.

Are you really so dim that you can't see that this is a direct
violation of one of the fundamental tenets of your constitution?

Nope, because they did NOT establish such a religion they are simply engaged
in the free exercise of, which I do believe the 1st specifically states is a
right.


No, free exercise would make no such mention. It is the inclusion of
the words that limits freedom. I suspect your error is simply due to
your religion being one that agrees with the words.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:14:34 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Living in a country where I am free to go about my daily life without
the fear that some gun-toting crazy may be just a few feet away (and
that is starting to look awfully much like you),

Please indicate for my which country currently exists which has NO illegal
guns held by criminals.

One tends to think you are speaking rhetoric rather than facts.


I am not talking about guns held by criminals; I regard them as a
non-problem because they are generally tools of a trade, and unlikely
to bother me in any way in my daily life. It is random guns in random
pockets of whatever person may be within a foot or two of me while I'm
living my daily life. I don't want them there. They would worry me,
and I really don't need that in my life.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:03:29 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Why are you putting (sic) after maths? That is the correct spelling;
it is a contraction of mathematics. Since this is a singular noun that
ends in an "s", the "s" has been retained in the abbreviation.

"Math" is an acceptable American version. But the redneck maybe
hasn't heard the English is "maths".

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 16:28:29 +0100, Laurence Payne
lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:03:29 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Why are you putting (sic) after maths? That is the correct spelling;
it is a contraction of mathematics. Since this is a singular noun that
ends in an "s", the "s" has been retained in the abbreviation.

"Math" is an acceptable American version. But the redneck maybe
hasn't heard the English is "maths".

True, I should make due allowance for ignorance.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:13:28 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

A lynch mob can be well-organised and effective.

No, a lynch mob by definition is not well organized.

Why not? It may be perfectly effecient in performing its declared
function, and go home quietly afterwards. If you're obsessed with
connotations of the name, call it a "Task Force" or something. SAme
thing.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:19:20 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

Please indicate the legal statute that mandates you to repeat that
particular oath.

It starts every school day.

I don't think he knows what "mandates" means.

[SaPeIsMa]

"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 ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:06:07 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

It always HAS been partially ignored, modified as necessary.

Yea, when it directly threatens or harms another without just cause. So
where is your comparable condition?

Easy. The number of people who get killed or injured in countries
with a gun culture. You just shot yourself in the foot. Pity you
had a gun handy :-)

Feel free to demonstrate the CAUSALITY of your claim...

For example, explain it in the context of countries with MUCH STRICTER gun
control and EVEN HIGHER homicide and injury rates

Your premise has holes in it big enough to sail the Queen Mary through it
Doesn't it bother you to be so wrong ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 02:07:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Not particularly. But that seems a valid reading of what the
constitution wants.

Only if you ignore the language and meaning of what is written.

For example....how do you manage to pervert the meaning of "the people" to
mean just "the militia" and how do you pervert that to mean "the
military"?

You've got it the wrong way round. They wanted a well-regulated
militia, so it was necessary to allow the people to own guns. The
people WERE the militia. Remember "people" only meant adult white
Christian men. That was implicit in the mores of the era. If full
rights were intended for anyone else, there was a notable failure to
even attempt implementing the policy :-)

Since that time
1) the meaning of the Militia has been expanded under USC 311
And you can be sure that recent jusriprudence and other legistlation
has expanded on that meaning as well
2) the meaning of "the people" has been expanded to include EVERY human
adult INDEPENDANT of sex or race

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:03:19 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:24:17 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.


It wasn't mind-numbing ignorance that caused either Columbine or
Virginia
Tech
It was MENTAL ILNESS
But thanks once again for demonstrating that the mind-numbing stupidity
of
the hoplophobes makes them completely MISS the REAL REASONS for such
aberrations


It was the mind-numbing ignorance of the simple fact that if the
mentally ill can't get hold of guns, they can't shoot anybody that
caused those two tragedies.

However, if they stabbed, ran over, blew up, gassed or burned those people
to death then everything would still be right with the world because those
people weren't shot???

Sorry, the problem is having people who desire to kill and providing them
an
unprotected population upon which to act.


Crazies will always do crazy things.

Yep, unless you can identify them (which Cho was) and remove them from
society (which Cho wasn't).

What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before he
had done too much harm.

Odd, serial killers have killed lots with close range weapons.

Guns are far more indiscriminate, and all he
has to do is stand in the doorway of a classroom and spray it around -
as he did.

Or ignite a gallon of gasoline or use a bomb which others have done.

Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?

Would he have killed only 32 if he drove through crowds with a pickup?

Playing games with what he could have done with what weapon is interesting
but ultimately futile. The fact is WE don't get to chose what weapon he uses
no matter what laws we pass to restrict his access to them. If he wants to
use a gun, he is going to get a gun. If he wants to use a bomb, then he is
going to build one. The only aspect you have which you really have any
control over is whether his victims will be unarmed and defenseless or
possible armed and able to fight back and take him out quickly. We've had
several cases were people on the scene of such events who were armed quickly
ended the spree and the body count was minimal. How many would those people
have killed if they hadn't been stopped? 32? more? less? Pretty much depends
on the drive of the person to kill doesn't it? You're just hoping they will
stop before they kill too many.

As I have said, you can't legislate against mental illness, but you
can legislate against guns.

Which does nothing but disarm the victims. As VT showed.


So now you want to arm children at school.

Since when are adults classified as "children"?

Is there no end to your
idiocy?

Perhaps if you didn't lie about what I actually said you wouldn't run into
such idiocy, but when you invent it then I'm glad to see you can spot your
own idiocy.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote in

y.com:




You deny that the government is democratically elected?

How we elect our officials has no bearing on the type of
government we are.

He didn't comment on our form of government, only that it's
democratically elected, which it certainly is.

The Electoral College selects the President, so no, it isn't purely
democratically elected.


Which is a good thing
The WHOLE electoral system of checks and balances was intended to AVOID
situations where one group or region of the country can overwhelm completely
other groups or areas
The Electoral College is another of those checks and balances that help
avoid the "tyranny of the masses" that would occur under a pure democracy

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:09:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:47:48 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

What you mean is that your ignorance was shown up again.


The USA was founded as a secular country, with freedom of religion for
all. Since 1954, by government legislation, every American citizen is
required to repeat an oath of allegiance which contains the words
"under God".

Please indicate the legal statute that mandates you to repeat that
particular oath.

It starts every school day.

I'm still waiting for you to produce something that requires every American
citizen to repeat this oath.

Just because school starts doesn't mean anyone has to say anything.


In other words religion (and a single specific one, at
that) by government decree.

Really? So tell me which SPECIFIC religion is the only one that recognizes
God?

I can think of several right off the top of my head.


It was written in by Catholics, so that is the god it refers to.

Ah, so Protestants don't believe in God. Jews don't believe in God. Mormons
don't belive in God, 7th Day doesn't believe in God, etc?????

So much for your assertion of a "single, specific [religion]"


Had
it said "under one or several gods" then you could plead generality.

Odd, I am unaware than any of the religions I've lists believe in any other
God. Can you cite your support for this?


Are you really so dim that you can't see that this is a direct
violation of one of the fundamental tenets of your constitution?

Nope, because they did NOT establish such a religion they are simply
engaged
in the free exercise of, which I do believe the 1st specifically states is
a
right.


No, free exercise would make no such mention.

How exactly do you exercise a religion that recognizes God without making
mention of God?????

It is the inclusion of
the words that limits freedom.

Sorry, I have the right to say what I want, and to exercise my religion. So
does anyone in elected office.

I suspect your error is simply due to
your religion being one that agrees with the words.

Irrelevant. The issue was your claims and the actual state of the law. If
someone wants to say a prayer to Allah on the floor of the Senate, I have
absolutely no objection to them doing so provided they have the floor.

An exercise of religion is NOT the establishment of religion.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:22:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

I am not talking about guns held by criminals; I regard them as a
non-problem because they are generally tools of a trade, and unlikely
to bother me in any way in my daily life. It is random guns in random
pockets of whatever person may be within a foot or two of me while I'm
living my daily life. I don't want them there. They would worry me,
and I really don't need that in my life.

In America, are street criminals and petty thieves likely to threaten
you with a gun?

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:40:14 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:03:19 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 May 2007 09:24:17 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

I give up this argument. I leave you to your Columbines and your
Virginia Techs and the mind-numbing ignorance that causes them.


It wasn't mind-numbing ignorance that caused either Columbine or
Virginia
Tech
It was MENTAL ILNESS
But thanks once again for demonstrating that the mind-numbing stupidity
of
the hoplophobes makes them completely MISS the REAL REASONS for such
aberrations


It was the mind-numbing ignorance of the simple fact that if the
mentally ill can't get hold of guns, they can't shoot anybody that
caused those two tragedies.

However, if they stabbed, ran over, blew up, gassed or burned those people
to death then everything would still be right with the world because those
people weren't shot???

Sorry, the problem is having people who desire to kill and providing them
an
unprotected population upon which to act.


Crazies will always do crazy things.

Yep, unless you can identify them (which Cho was) and remove them from
society (which Cho wasn't).

What you have to manage is the
scale of the resulting tragedy. Knives operate at close range, and it
is reasonable to suppose that such a person could be stopped before he
had done too much harm.

Odd, serial killers have killed lots with close range weapons.


Relevance to the current topic please?

Guns are far more indiscriminate, and all he
has to do is stand in the doorway of a classroom and spray it around -
as he did.

Or ignite a gallon of gasoline or use a bomb which others have done.

Do you seriously believe there would be 32 (is that right?)
dead at VT if he had gone there armed with a knife?

Would he have killed only 32 if he drove through crowds with a pickup?

Playing games with what he could have done with what weapon is interesting
but ultimately futile. The fact is WE don't get to chose what weapon he uses
no matter what laws we pass to restrict his access to them. If he wants to
use a gun, he is going to get a gun. If he wants to use a bomb, then he is
going to build one. The only aspect you have which you really have any
control over is whether his victims will be unarmed and defenseless or
possible armed and able to fight back and take him out quickly. We've had
several cases were people on the scene of such events who were armed quickly
ended the spree and the body count was minimal. How many would those people
have killed if they hadn't been stopped? 32? more? less? Pretty much depends
on the drive of the person to kill doesn't it? You're just hoping they will
stop before they kill too many.

As I have said, you can't legislate against mental illness, but you
can legislate against guns.

Which does nothing but disarm the victims. As VT showed.


So now you want to arm children at school.

Since when are adults classified as "children"?


I saw the footage from VT - those were children. They were crying for
their parents.

I will ask you again. Would you want all of those young people (if you
insist) to go to their classes with a gun? That is the logical
conclusion of your comment about disarming victims.

Is there no end to your
idiocy?

Perhaps if you didn't lie about what I actually said you wouldn't run into
such idiocy, but when you invent it then I'm glad to see you can spot your
own idiocy.


Now you are just being silly.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scout]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:14:34 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Living in a country where I am free to go about my daily life without
the fear that some gun-toting crazy may be just a few feet away (and
that is starting to look awfully much like you),

Please indicate for my which country currently exists which has NO illegal
guns held by criminals.

One tends to think you are speaking rhetoric rather than facts.


I am not talking about guns held by criminals; I regard them as a
non-problem because they are generally tools of a trade, and unlikely
to bother me in any way in my daily life.

Really? Criminals don't pray on innocent people going about their daily
lives????

It is random guns in random
pockets of whatever person may be within a foot or two of me while I'm
living my daily life.

I see. It's not the fact that they are or are not harming you, threatening
you, or otherwise breaking the law. It's just you don't like it, and who
gives a damn what anyone else wants.

If I should find it objectionable that you are alive at all. Shall that give
me the authority to change that?

I don't want them there.

Tough ****. What you want isn't relevent unless you can provide a legitimate
reason why we should violate the rights of everyone because of what you
want.

They would worry me,
and I really don't need that in my life.

So you aren't worried about the criminals who carry guns around you, even
though they are the most likely ones to threat or harm you with them.
Instead you are in a panic about law abiding people with them.

Sounds to me as if you are a criminal, and fear finding one of your law
abiding citizens in possession of the means to make you stop.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:36:20 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:


"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 ?




It certainly shows that those drafting the clause were only marginally
literate. Why am I not surprised?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 5 May 2007 10:38:03 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote:

Easy. The number of people who get killed or injured in countries
with a gun culture. You just shot yourself in the foot. Pity you
had a gun handy :-)

Feel free to demonstrate the CAUSALITY of your claim...

For example, explain it in the context of countries with MUCH STRICTER gun
control and EVEN HIGHER homicide and injury rates

(What does "casuality" mean in this context?)

OK. Show us figures that countries where most of the population have
barely SEEN a gun, let alone owned one, have higher gun injury and
fatality rates. There ARE such happy places, you know.