[Bill Graham]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16:07 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:


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.

You aren't a Christian by any chance, are you? You twist the
constitution the way a Christian does the bible.

d

A compound sentence does not necessarily have to contain some connection
between the two parts. If the second amendment stated, "The moon being made
of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." it would still be the same law, neither better nor worse, and I
would still interpret it the same way. The founding fathers had no
obligation to justify any law they wrote into the document. If anything, the
first half of the second amendment gives me a hint that they were probably
talking about assault weapons, or those weapons that some invading army
might use to launch an assault on the United States. But in any case, that
first half of the sentence needs not be there and doesn't have to have
anything to do with the second half, which states the law, and does have to
be there. Why this is so hard for liberals to understand beats the hell out
of me.

And, no. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist. Not by choice. But I just
find it impossible to believe that this whole universe, over 30 billion
light years in diameter, was created by some kindly old man in the sky that
hovers over my bunk at night making sure that I get a good night's sleep.
Besides, this, "kindly old man" sits idly by while millions of small
creatures freeze and starve to death every Winter, and I don't think my nap
time is very important when compared to that.