User Tag List

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 178

Thread: 2nd Amendment

  1. #11
    Banned Jiggyfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboysrock55 View Post
    The well drilled has to do with the militia.

    This is a pretty clear and unambiguous statement: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
    If it's so clear and unambiguous why is not a stand alone sentence?

    You can't just ignore the beginning part of that sentence.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Cowboysrock55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggyfly View Post
    If it's so clear and unambiguous why is not a stand alone sentence?

    You can't just ignore the beginning part of that sentence.
    Because the need for a militia and the need for the citizens to be able to bare arms both had to do with the ability of the people to defend their country and property.

    No one is ignoring the beginning of the sentence. We just don't really have a need for militia anymore. Just like the third Amendment is pretty useless these days. But something describing a militia doesn't describe something else just because it's in the same sentence, that would just be silly. If this was a statute and you brought your argument in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

  3. #13
    One-armed Knife Sharpener Iamtdg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    48,441
    Here at the DCC, we even redefine the constitution. You won't find that kinda content anywhere else.
    2016 DCC LOTY Fantasy Football Champion

  4. #14
    Senior Member Kbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboysrock55 View Post
    Again, well regulated modifies the term militia. It doesn't modify the portion giving the right to bear arms. It's just English. Maybe I've been in law too long or something but this isn't confusing at all.
    It is a dependent clause modifying the independent clause, not expressing a separate thought.

    I am pro-gun, but I'm just saying.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Genghis Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggyfly View Post
    If it's so clear and unambiguous why is not a stand alone sentence?

    You can't just ignore the beginning part of that sentence.
    You can't just ignore the end part of that sentence. Anyone who is trying to claim that the end part isn't the operative phrase of the amendment is being intellectually dishonest.

    The first part is the reasoning for it, the second part is the black letter law.

    It simply can't be otherwise. If you broke it into two sentences, the second part stands alone. The first part does not. There's no directive there. It's actually pretty clear and it's only been called into question by people who have a political agenda.

    If congress wants to eliminate guns, there's an amendment process. It's that simple.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Genghis Khan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboysrock55 View Post
    Because the need for a militia and the need for the citizens to be able to bare arms both had to do with the ability of the people to defend their country and property.

    No one is ignoring the beginning of the sentence. We just don't really have a need for militia anymore. Just like the third Amendment is pretty useless these days. But something describing a militia doesn't describe something else just because it's in the same sentence, that would just be silly. If this was a statute and you brought your argument in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

    Correct.

  7. #17
    Senior Member pdom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,287
    This might be a separate topic, but does the regulation of legal assault rifles/weapons have a bearing on preventing mass shootings?

    If more handgun owners could prevent/limit damage of mass shootings, that's assuming you're carrying a handgun in public. Even if you owned assault rifles, you wouldn't be carrying them in public (or is this part of the argument)?

  8. #18
    Senior Member Cowboysrock55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17,859
    Quote Originally Posted by pdom View Post
    Even if you owned assault rifles, you wouldn't be carrying them in public (or is this part of the argument)?
    I mean you could but the stigma about assault rifles is so bad right now that if you're seen carrying one the cops get called and they try to arrest you. That's why you get the ridiculous videos of people carrying them around trying to make a point with officers.

    Hand guns are semi automatic. I imagine you could do just as much damage with a few of those as an assault rifle.

    Again unrelated but what in the hell is the point of a gun free zone if you aren't actually going to make sure people don't have guns? It's one of the dumbest concepts.
    Last edited by Cowboysrock55; 06-17-2016 at 02:16 PM.

  9. #19
    Banned Jiggyfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,221
    Quote Originally Posted by Genghis Khan View Post
    You can't just ignore the end part of that sentence. Anyone who is trying to claim that the end part isn't the operative phrase of the amendment is being intellectually dishonest.

    The first part is the reasoning for it, the second part is the black letter law.

    It simply can't be otherwise. If you broke it into two sentences, the second part stands alone. The first part does not. There's no directive there. It's actually pretty clear and it's only been called into question by people who have a political agenda.

    If congress wants to eliminate guns, there's an amendment process. It's that simple.
    I am not ignoring the end part, I realize it's importance.

    My question is how does the 1st part fit in and why is it never discussed when 2nd amendment issues are being discussed.

    I truly had not ever seen the amendment in it's entirety until yesterday.

    How can you make one part of a sentence black letter law and ignore the rest of it?
    Last edited by Jiggyfly; 06-17-2016 at 03:48 PM.

  10. #20
    Banned Jiggyfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    9,221
    Why is gun bans being brought up here?

    I am not advocating that and it is not part of the question I asked.

    Why take it to that extreme?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •