It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Sphota
i'm guessing you don't watch much historical battles via movies, television or theatre
swords have been used for centuries for Multiple killing sprees ... one sword, many deaths.
and, your entire argument (pointless as it is) is based on the Second Amemdment being interpreted as a stand alone law in need of interpretation and that is not the case, not at all.
btw, the commas are NOT included in the original Ratified amendment ...their origin is unknown.
i would suggest a more factual resource such as this one ... source
3. In the Congressional Statutes at Large, Vol. 1, Page 97, at memory.loc.gov.../llsl001.db&recNum=220, the first and third commas are omitted, so that it 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 question remains open of where those additional, and grammatically spurious, commas came from, but they do not change the legal meaning of the provision, and it would not be erroneous to omit them.
all that is left is for the people to read and understand the original ... rather the re-writes.edit on 13-8-2011 by Honor93 because: add txtedit on 13-8-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)
ok, i get it ... you don't like guns but truthfully, who does ?? (ok, maybe some diehard hunters but there are other effective ways).
Yes, I suppose if two men are standing one behind the other and a third lunges in with a very long sword, he could pierce two to the heart, knocking them dead. What I mean by one person at a time is literally one person at a time. In the instant I kill one person with a sword, I cannot be killing another. In the instant one bullet is fired at a target, I cannot be firing at another.
On the contrary, 1 bomb can kill hundreds of people - make it a nuke and you're talking at least several thousand. One machine gun can cut down dozens of people in a few seconds. Arguably, yes, bullet by bullet is still the norm even for a machine gun, but not exactly the "point, click, your dead" of so-called conventional guns.
Pointless because you are dissecting a none existent point. The original does not have the excess commas. Time, history, historians, pick somebody as for who and how it was changed, it really is irrelevant as the declaration and it's intention is quite clear and direct.
I really don't see how it's pointless, if you would like to spell that out, I would be happy to address your concerns.
now you're trying to confuse the issue. what you describe is a) a declaration and b) an implied request which do not go hand in hand.
How so, not "in need of interpretation"? Everything is in need of interpretation. If I say to you, "It's hot in here", would you know interpret something - namely a suggestion to open a window or turn on the a/c? If someone told you that "The store closes at 8pm", do you not need to interpret what store and why it is relevant to you?
one cannot deem perception the same or equal to interpretation. Freedom Of the press means what it says, nothing else. No other interpretation applies.
When someone says freedom of the press, are you not supposed to interpret what that means...namely, The print media - and now electronic and tech media - need to be unhindered (as opposed to say, the "printing press itself is free", or "pressing oil out of olives should be free" or some other such ridiculous interpretation)? What about freedom itself, freedom to or freedom from? How you interpret that is very important for setting a precedent to interpreting freedom in every context. The list goes on and on, but I challenge you to find anything in life that doesn't require interpretation, especially in governance and law.
ok, no one is arguing that but i linked the version on Congressional record so i don't see your point in discussing non-existent punctuation which does nothing to alter the context of the statement.
I'm pretty sure that I said that the ratified amendment did not have those two commas. In fact, I know I said at least twice that the Ratification by the states did not contain them. I said the version from Congress did.
Regardless, what was ratified is what stands and there is no separation between State rights and rights belonging to the citizenry of the State. And why would you argue points of an UNratified document anyway?
The foot note says it becomes a question as to where the "grammatically spurious" commas came from. It doesn't matter. They were put there and as I said, commas serve a function in text that is interpreted. With a comma something sounds one way, without the comma it sounds another. For them to simply brush off the commas in the unratified version is a bit confusing. I mean, they (the person who wrote the foot notes) can brush them off as nothing important and a curiosity, but when you put a comma in a phrase, there is use and meaning to it.
your feelings about it are irrelevant. It is what it is and it says what it says. why muddy the waters?
You can call what I say mindless or meaningless or pointless, but I feel that the absence of the two commas creates a different understanding of the passage than the presence of them.
ummmm, then how do you define "unabridged" ?? and do you find regulations to be an abridgement of the guaranteed right contained therein ?
The regulation of guns is not implied or omitted
actually, i can't because even with the commas, it clearly implies the militia is the citizenry which infers they are one in the same. and the right of the militia IS equally the right of the ppl (who are the militia) comprende?
In the multi-comma version it is clearly "the well regulated militia" that "shall not be infringed." You can at least agree with me that the presence of the commas, purposeful or accidental, does change the reading of the sentence.
only a fools attempt to define 'common sense' ... hence, government ... nuf said.
Originally posted by Theorytripper
reply to post by Honor93
But what defines common sence. If there is no legal frame work of what we agree upon as a group, common sence can mean any number of things to each individual. That's the problem in overcomes, it gives everyone the frame work, the rules of the game.
i wouldn't call it a 'law' (i'd have to check that) but it was listed as "duties of the citizenry" in documents prior to the Constitution. (Articles of Confederation, i think)
And to add, wasn't there a law on the books back before the war of 1812 that mandated every able bodied man carry a musket, a certain amount of powder and bullets. I mean, that is a law affecting a person's right to bear arms, in that that person does not have the right to not bear arms.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Theorytripper
but, but .. what ever happened to the best 'code' of all ???
Do unto others ... blah, blah, blah ??
something tells me that laws were created to abolish common sense.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Laws are not meant to solve problems, only to curb them. Their purpose is to denote unacceptable actions and provide a legal basis for punishing those that break them.
On a side note...i'll play along....Roe v. Wade has literally solved millions of "problems".edit on 12-8-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)
There never has existed, and it is entirely safe to say that there never will exist, on this planet any organization of human society, any tribe or nation however rude, any aggregation of men however savage, that has not been more or less controlled by some recognized form of law. .
One nearly complete example of the Code survives today, on a diorite stele in the shape of a huge index finger, (2.25 m or 7.4 ft tall) The Code is inscribed in the Akkadian language, using cuneiform script carved into the steel, today on display in the Louvre, in Paris.
they will guide us towards a suitable punishment for the offender that commits a crime or offence