[Bill Graham]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:46:11 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:42:59 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
A tic is a spasm of the facial muscles. A short sharp sound is a
TICK - like what a clock does.

And while we're on a roll, could the whole usenet/web-forum world
now please stop saying "revert back" instead of "revert" and
"loose" when they mean "lose" .
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA


And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and
"they're". It will only take 2 minutes. Really.

Is that 2 minutes, to minutes, too minutes or two minutes?

You are fighting a losing battle. Mrs Hughes, my fifth grade
English teacher is long gone, (I am 75) and very few people have
learned much real English since then. Even the Supreme Court
thinks the second amendment says, "Only the
Army can keep and bear arms."

Whereas it actually says that the people can bear arms for the
purposes of maintaining a militia. No other reason is offered.
Nothing about defending oneself or simply looking hard.

d

But the law doesn't say "for the purpose of maintaining a militia",
and even if it did, that wouldn't be a part of the law. The law
says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed", which tells me that the right to keep and bear arms has
always been there, and the law simply guarantees that it won't be
changed. It all seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I had Mrs.
Hughes, and most peoplke didn't. At 75, I am getting very tired of
trying to teach English to all those who didn't have a, Mrs. Hughes.

Also, why do people keep adding, "itself" to, "We have nothing to
fear but fear?"

No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:

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 the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of maintaining
a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to pretend that the
bits you don't like aren't there you may as well throw the
constitution out right now.

d

I see you didn't have a Mrs. Hughes either. If it said, A well roasted side
of venison being necessary for the stomaches of the members of a free state,
the right of the peopole to keep and ber arms shall not be infringed, it
would still mean the same thing.

The law states that the people have a right, and this right shall not be
infringed. Why it shouldn't be infringed has nothing to do with the law. The
first part of the sentence tells me that they were talking about assault
weapons, and not hunting or target weapons, but even that is neither here
nor there. The law would still state that the people's right to keep and
bear arms will not be infringed.