Finally hitting middle America

unfortunately, when you bring in the second amendment, that's where you're wrong.

By using simple grammar that most of us would have learned back in elementary school, we can break up the amendment

here it is, as it appears in the Bill of Rights

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.

source


A well regulated Militia is the subject of this sentence.
What is the purpose of this militia? To keep the security of a free state.

Now, it goes on to elaborate.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"the people" as it is written in the bill of rights, refers to the militia, more pointedly, refers to what makes up that militia, not an individual right for you or me.

If it were an individual right, then the people should be capitalized, as such "The People" since it refers to another group "THE PEOPLE" being everyone as a whole.


You have to put yourself in the correct mind set.

The people of 1776 worshiped writing. They loved it. They would not have mistakenly made such an elementary grammatical error, unless of course, the did not intend for it to be an error, as such, the people of the militia shall not have their rights to bare arms infringed.

Simple translation: Want the right to a weapon as given by the constitution? Go join a militia.

An individual is NOT a militia.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Fremd]

reply to post by Fremd


You may wish to polish up on your education a bit. It was practice to provide a preamble that was used to provide a background, or purpose and intent of what is to follow, prior to the actual subject.

Just a nuance of the times, but if you don't know common word usage as written at the time it was written, and you don't know common practices such as these preambles, then you're likely to confuse the statements.

Second mistake: Keep in mind that at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, what constituted a citizen: a free, white, property owning adult male.

Since then, slavery has been abolished, and non-whites and women have been included.

In all Federalist Papers, as well as a cursory study of the term "militia" and what it meant at the time it was written, the term militia was all adult male citizens.

All adult male citizens were the militia. And to emphasize that, recall that our founding fathers didn't even want a standing army, something that even today has to be reinstated periodically.

And the term "well-regulated" means well capable, well trained, and well prepared.

A nation of shooters, with access to the same cutting edge weapons common to militaries, would ensure that the US citizens should never be at a disadvantage to any military, including the US military, whom our founding fathers greatly feared.

This was to ensure a free people, who could fight their government, if required. And of course, that would include any military weapon, especially fully automatic weapons.

You attempt to interchange the word "people" with the word "militia."

Tricky, but it doesn't work.

All militia were of the people, but not all people were adult, male, white, property owning free men. See the difference"

I do hope our education system can someday back up a few decades and bring the same quality that existed in the recent past, so we would not continue to such mistaken perceptions of such simple, base, misunderstandings as this.

reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn


Really? If I have been 'preaching to the choir' the choir needs to reexamine the words of the songs they are singing on several threads. Always bears repeating fellow Patriot! Long Live This Republic!

reply to post by Fremd


You sir are entirely wrong. A rereading of the Federalist Papers would quickly resolve any questions you might have on this subject. Numerous quotes of the Founding Fathers PROVE conclusively that they gave the Second Amendment to the people TO FORM MILITIAS AS THEY NEEDED (exactly as the Town Militia that formed on the Lexington Green to resist the British attempts at weapons collection); further, that the peoples ability to have weapons must not be infringed so that they could maintain practice. Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the subject in correspondence with Adams would be instructive on this issue.

It is for this reason the Supreme Court JUST struck down D.C.’s gun bans. Justice Thomas even said that it is the CLEAR intent of the Founders that all citizens have access to fire arms TO GUARD AGAINST Governmental excesses; I.E., the second amendment is NOT ABOUT DUCK HUNTING – unless that is the ducks are wearing ‘Red Coats’.

reply to post by SGTChas


I see.
So when the Supreme Court says guns are okay - you give them kudos and say it's set in stone, never to be changed, that's the way the founding fathers meant for it to be.

But when the Supreme Court says abortion is okay, you and people like you, are outraged?


I can't side with someone so biased. Sorry.
If you examine the document and grade it like you would a 4th grade english paper, you'll find that they meant for people of the militia. Not red-neck backwood rambo's.

reply to post by Fremd



I have a bow myself but prefer firearms. When it comes to putting meat on the table I'll take the rifle any day over a bow. I'm sure you would to if you need to feed your family in the future. A Bow is fun but not as efficient.

You guys that hog hunt with a knife are nuts! It must be fun though training those dogs to work with you. I guess if I run out of ammo and arrows I may resort to that type of hunting. But I'm thinking my knife will be on the end of a very long spear!

Look.
People need to think with their brains, and stop listening to what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tell them.

Barack Obama is not going to take your daddy's shotgun, but he is going to try to take the street thug's tek-9

Why?

Because a tek-9 exists for one reason: Murdering people.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Fremd]

Any weapon that they take away will still be acuired by criminals. Happens all over the world in countries with fewer freedoms than the USA. Why should a lawful citizen be outgunned by a criminal? Their is no one on this planet that has a right to tell me how and when I can protect myself and my family. I'll protect my gift of life how I see fit. Sometimes your "daddy's" shotgun just won't be enough.

Originally posted by Fremd
unfortunately, when you bring in the second amendment, that's where you're wrong.

By using simple grammar that most of us would have learned back in elementary school, we can break up the amendment

here it is, as it appears in the Bill of Rights

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.

source


A well regulated Militia is the subject of this sentence.
What is the purpose of this militia? To keep the security of a free state.

Now, it goes on to elaborate.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

"the people" as it is written in the bill of rights, refers to the militia, more pointedly, refers to what makes up that militia, not an individual right for you or me.

If it were an individual right, then the people should be capitalized, as such "The People" since it refers to another group "THE PEOPLE" being everyone as a whole.


You have to put yourself in the correct mind set.

The people of 1776 worshiped writing. They loved it. They would not have mistakenly made such an elementary grammatical error, unless of course, the did not intend for it to be an error, as such, the people of the militia shall not have their rights to bare arms infringed.

Simple translation: Want the right to a weapon as given by the constitution? Go join a militia.

An individual is NOT a militia.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Fremd]

THANK GOD YOU ARE WRONG. Even the Supreme Court finally acknowledge the individual in their decision last year.

reply to post by on_yur_6


wow, three posts all for me I feel honored, on yur 6, no no i really do


by the way, about the supreme court

please read over the part of my post you avoided

I see.
So when the Supreme Court says guns are okay - you give them kudos and say it's set in stone, never to be changed, that's the way the founding fathers meant for it to be.

But when the Supreme Court says abortion is okay, you and people like you, are outraged?

I love it when someone talks about removing assault weapons that have no business in public place, all you rambo's out there act like the world is coming to an end.

The constitution does not see it that way, just because the Supreme court (under a radical conservative bush administration none the less) says that it's true does not make it so


Just as if science were to prove abortion should be illegal, then roe vs wade should be over turned as well.

People like you make me shiver. To watch you mock the supreme court on one hand, and praise them on the other.

But hey, it doesn't surprise me.

I can't wait till they take your assault weapons though. I'll be sure to make a thread laughing my butt off the entire time. Because there is 0% chance you need an assault weapon to protect your house hold from an intruder.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Fremd]

reply to post by Fremd


I'm glad your honored. Obviously we are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum concerning personal protection.

Just remember the so called civil world we live in at this time is just an experiment. At any time a dictator can rise up and will attempt to control those that can't protect themselves. This has happenned many time in the last 60 years. What makes you think it will never happen in the USA?

Put your fingers in your ears and remain ignorant it makes no difference to me. Keep throwing out red neck verbal jabs. I really don't care. I have my education and high paying job. But my roots are grounded in self preservation and the Boy Scout motto, "Be prepared." I served my country and this gave me an even greater appreciation for our freedoms. I just hope that others reading your logic come to the conclusion that your views are based in a world where nothing can ever go wrong.

Unfortunately, we all know how wrong that line of thinking is and how it will eventually bite you in the butt.

Originally posted by Fremd
I can't wait till they take your assault weapons though. I'll be sure to make a thread laughing my butt off the entire time. Because there is 0% chance you need an assault weapon to protect your house hold from an intruder.

What exactly is your personal definition of an 'assault weapon?' I think the answer to that question might possibly clear up any number of misconceptions on both sides of the issue.

reply to post by Fremd

Fremd, I've read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and there is no mention of abortion anywhere. Supreme Court rulings on abortion has nothing to do with when the Supreme Court validates what is written in the Bill of Rights.

And no one is suggesting taking "assault weapons" into public places.

As far as grading the Constitution and Bill of Rights like a 4th grade english paper, I think that's indicative of the problem.

You're right. They did mean "the people of the militia." And since I'm an able-bodied adult male, then that makes me the militia.

For God's sake, read the Federalist Papers. Learn something.

The fact that people like us make others shiver is nothing new. The hard-core NVA lost a lot of sleep too, and dedicated over 10,000 men trying to track us down and keep us off the trail.

Didn't work.

And no one will be taking my "assault weapons." Not now, not later. Never.

My government spent hundreds of thousand of dollars preparing me to become one of their more highly skilled weapons. I had four separate MOS's, 11B Light Weapons, 11C Indirect Fire, 05B Field Communications, 12B Combat Engineer, which was my primary job in Special Forces.

Upon my return from combat, the Army was doing a study to determine the common characteristics of those of us who were more "successful" in combat.

I could have told them. If you're good at something, you enjoy it. If you enjoy something, you're good at it.

Our kill ratios in Laos ranged between 100:1 to 150:1, depending on the time period you wish to examine.

And I'm going to let someone just come in and take something of mine?

You keep dreaming.

Like it or not, hate me or not, I'm probably one of the best, most reliable friends you'll ever have.

reply to post by on_yur_6


Six!

This hog-hunting method was not what I had in mind. A game warden told us the premier hog hunter was a Robert Cruz, and if we wanted adventure, contact him.

We did, he told us to arrive early the next morning. We asked if pistols were sufficient, and he said, "Boys, we don't use no firearms. In fact, no firearms allowed."

The little "leopard" dogs find the hogs, bark, and we haulass to the location. The dogs are yapping, and the hog is snapping and spinning.

You just time your leap, grab him by the hind legs, and hold on for dear life!

We always come back bloody ourselves, but what excitement! It's the most dangerous thing I've ever done or experienced. A rush to beat all rushes!

Oh. And no knife. Just a four foot length of rope to tie him once we catch him.

Robert keeps one knife in the saddle bags to cut rope.

Originally posted by larphillips

Originally posted by Fremd
I can't wait till they take your assault weapons though. I'll be sure to make a thread laughing my butt off the entire time. Because there is 0% chance you need an assault weapon to protect your house hold from an intruder.

What exactly is your personal definition of an 'assault weapon?' I think the answer to that question might possibly clear up any number of misconceptions on both sides of the issue.

Assault Weapon
Assault Weapon
Assault Weapon
Assault Weapon
Assault Weapon
Assault Weapon

Basically - when i say assault weapon, i mean the exact definition of it:

any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.

source

Emphasis on "automatic" and "military firearms"

They have no business in the hands of wacky gun crazy individuals

Otherwise, you get things like this happening


Keep in mind.

An individual isnt a CRIMINAL until after the crime as been committed.

Keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands of individuals.
The only reason criminals have them now, is because they obtained them as individuals.

The constitution is supposed to protect people from that happening.

Hence, the grammar structure that was ignored by a Washington DC handgun supreme court ruling.

It'll happen...and i can't wait until it does.

The little "leopard" dogs find the hogs, bark, and we haulass to the location. The dogs are yapping, and the hog is snapping and spinning.

Every time i read you takling about killing a boar with your bare hands, it makes me more and more convinced you're just making it up.
Nobody cares. You exaggerating your hunting activities is not the title of this thread.



[edit on 31-3-2009 by Fremd]

Originally posted by j2000
I think the Govt. is already playing with our supply.
We need a whistle blower to come from someplace and put this right.

So when i go to Wal-Mart to buy some tires for my car, and they're out of the size i want (very popular size on most mid sized sedans made by ford) does that mean that the government is manipulating my buying power so that i am forced to buy a more name-brand tire?


Well, the answer to my question is the same answer to your question.

No. It doesn't.

It means the Walmart manager who's in charge of ordering the ammunition did not order enough.

It's the same reason you go in there in January to get a bow case on sale, and they're all sold out.

Someone else beat you to it.

It's not a conspiracy.

reply to post by Fremd


Fremd, I wouldn't expect you to believe that's how we hunt hogs.

Based on your posts, your views on weapons, and your misunderstanding of the Constitution, I imagine that you've been very limited in your life experiences.

I'll bet you've never been "noodling," either, have you?

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Fremd

 

Fremd, I wouldn't expect you to believe that's how we hunt hogs.

Based on your posts, your views on weapons, and your misunderstanding of the Constitution, I imagine that you've been very limited in your life experiences.

I'll bet you've never been "noodling," either, have you?

All he has to do is search in youtube to find videos of the hog hunting "by hand" and noodling. I watched a show called pig bomb the other day. It was about the rapid expansion of feral pigs throughout the USA and Europe/Asia. It showed some good ol' boys from Alabama taking some boars without any weapons. They used their dogs just like you mentioned.

I just picked up an old bolt action 30 30 and now I have to find that ammo. Hell even that ammo is scarce. The manufacturers just can't keep up.

reply to post by Fremd


So, let me attempt to follow your circular reasoning; to wit, because I find fault with a new privacy right not clearly delineated but merely PRESUMED by implication to be in the Constitution by liberal judges, you reject CLEAR statements by the author and a contributor to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as to the correct application of the Second Amendment? Pray tell, perhaps you might be able to enlighten me as to where you studied logical debate; they would seem to be able to offer interesting courses on fantasy to go along with their obviously studious studies on logic.

As you appear to have studied the US Constitution and Bill of Rights at the same honored institution of academia, let me humbly point out that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights ARE NOT “LIVING DOCUMENTS” that ‘evolve’ at the politically correct whim of the people. Indeed, they were ‘STONE’ barriers to the whimsical fleeting attacks of the majorities opinion against GOD given rights CLEARLY enumerated therein; limiting NOT THE PEOPLE, but the ever evil reach of government to take power.


[edit on 4/1/2009 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Fremd

 

Fremd, I wouldn't expect you to believe that's how we hunt hogs.

Based on your posts, your views on weapons, and your misunderstanding of the Constitution, I imagine that you've been very limited in your life experiences.

I'll bet you've never been "noodling," either, have you?

Wow. I'm honored.
Since when did a thread about ammunition and the government conspiracy to buy it up, turn into rather or not ol' fremd has been "noodling" or "hand hog hunting"

simple rule of thumb
the more detailed you get to a group of strangers about something you've "done", the more everyone around you is going to know you're making it up.

Nobody cares. Talk about the topic, we know you dont hunt with your bare hands and leopard dogs because you talk about it too damn much.

Care to discuss the topic? Or are you going to ask me rather or not i've been cow tipping next?

reply to post by Fremd


When they come to take assault weapons your new thread will not be read by many former contributors to ATS, as we will be busily engaged in the Second American Revolution. You see, we ‘backwoods red-necks’ are prepared to honor the oath that many of us took while in uniform to “…support and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC”. Therefore, while you are laughing men and women will be dying to defend even your rights. Perhaps then you will recognize your errors of logic and remember what it really means to be American.

[edit on 4/1/2009 by SGTChas]