hoodlum mentality
Average Joe
is their path in life to success
well, that is emulating the same pigs in society that oppress them
this is not about being a hoodlum, ITS ABOUT REVOLUTION, I am
suggesting we be disciplined and focused, not anarchic
rebels without causes, are not rebels, SEE MY WESBITE IN MY SIGNATURE
AND GET A CAUSE
we need organization and order, not anarchy
competition is anarchy and results in seperation, collaboration
results in assembly
combine the 2nd and 4th amendments to the USA constitution and you
have the right to assemble with arms
--
My solution to the world's problems?
www.mysolution.ws
INCLUDES PICTURES OF ME
Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness?
Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who
has the good imposed upon him?
quote from "A Clockwork Orange"
"Ich bin ein Berliner" - JFK
3rik
"Average Joe" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
news:hp75cvs7tpfn66do0...@4ax.com...
>
> combine the 2nd and 4th amendments to the USA constitution and you
> have the right to assemble with arms
>
HaHa.
David Simpson
Have you ever been in one of the armed services? In 1776 the phrase
"keep and bear arms" referred to military service. It did not give
anyone permission to carry a firearm at any time other than when he
was in a "well regulated militia".
Since that is the way that most court decisions have interpreted the
amendment, you are wrong, unless you meant the arms in your sleevies.
--
Regards
David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...
for a first offence.
Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
Tony Blair
Ah well that's it then Joe. All off. No uprising today blue. Some ozzie
dainty with an ego the size of a planet and the brain the size of a pin
has found a legal technicality. All off then.
Average Joe
Buggin69
> Have you ever been in one of the armed services? In 1776 the phrase
> "keep and bear arms" referred to military service. It did not give
> anyone permission to carry a firearm at any time other than when he
> was in a "well regulated militia".
>
a militia is merely an army of the people
I feel like I should keep in practice at all times in case my militia
service is ever needed
therefore I should be able to bear arms as I see fit
Dave Hitt
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 2003 22:25:12 GMT, "3rik" <mr3...@earthlink.net> typed
>
>>
>>"Average Joe" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
>>news:hp75cvs7tpfn66do0...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> combine the 2nd and 4th amendments to the USA constitution and you
>>> have the right to assemble with arms
>>>
>>
>>HaHa.
>>
>Have you ever been in one of the armed services? In 1776 the phrase
>"keep and bear arms" referred to military service. It did not give
>anyone permission to carry a firearm at any time other than when he
>was in a "well regulated militia".
Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
It had nothing to do with military service. The second amendment
applies to THE PEOPLE. It is the only amendment that comes with a
reason,, that a "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the
security of a free State", but belonging to the militia was not ever a
requirement for that right.
Before we continue this discussing, please indicate your knowledge of
the matter by providing with an explanation of what the following two
terms mean:
Well-Regulated.
Militia.
---
Don't settle for watching Improv on TV. See it live, and join in the fun!
http://www.insertsomethingfunny.com/index.php
Buggin69
Hahahaha... finally.. somebody takes my side
and what good is a militia if ever ones needs to be formed if nobody can
shoot a gun because we weren't allowed to have them
David Simpson
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> typed furiously:
>On Thu, 15 May 2003 16:51:48 +0930, David Simpson
><faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 May 2003 22:25:12 GMT, "3rik" <mr3...@earthlink.net> typed
>>
>>>
>>>"Average Joe" <avera...@mysolution.ws> wrote in message
>>>news:hp75cvs7tpfn66do0...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> combine the 2nd and 4th amendments to the USA constitution and you
>>>> have the right to assemble with arms
>>>>
>>>
>>>HaHa.
>>>
>>Have you ever been in one of the armed services? In 1776 the phrase
>>"keep and bear arms" referred to military service. It did not give
>>anyone permission to carry a firearm at any time other than when he
>>was in a "well regulated militia".
>
>Wrong wrong wrong wrong.
>
>It had nothing to do with military service. The second amendment
>applies to THE PEOPLE. It is the only amendment that comes with a
>reason,, that a "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the
>security of a free State", but belonging to the militia was not ever a
>requirement for that right.
>
Incorrect. The phrase "keep and bear arms" refers exclusively to
*military service*. It had no other meaning in the context of the time
frame of the second amendment.
The people is the people as a whole. i.e. The citizens of a State as a
society or group of people. It does not refer to an individual.
>Before we continue this discussing, please indicate your knowledge of
>the matter by providing with an explanation of what the following two
>terms mean:
>
>Well-Regulated.
>
Self explanatory. There must be a structured command organisation and,
in the case of your second amendment, it is answerable to the State
not the Federal government. Your National Guard units fit the bill
admirably.
>Militia.
>
Military type organisation including but not necessarily limited to
army, navy, air force, police, US National guard, security forces
(public or private), coast guard, FBI, etc.
The second amendment stops the Federal government from disallowing
each State the right to have its own military force. It has nothing to
do with the right of an individual person to carry a gun.
Are you allowed to carry a sword?
Dave Hitt
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
You're regurgitating leftist babble that it little more than a lame
attempt to discredit what the amendment actually says. I would
suggest you read the writings of the founding fathers and see what
they had to say about the constitution they crafted. The federalist
papers is an excellent start, and from there move on to their
published articles and their personal condescendence. It will be
quite an education, I can assure you.
The first amendment refers to individual rights. The third amendment
refers to individual rights. The fourth. . . etc. It's not until we
get to the tenth that "the states" are mentioned. Yet, in a desperate
attempt to twist the meaning of the second, lefties insist that the
second refers to some amorphous mass, instead of the individuals that
it obviously refers to.
Now, we're about to see how little you know of the subject.
>>Before we continue this discussing, please indicate your knowledge of
>>the matter by providing with an explanation of what the following two
>>terms mean:
>>
>>Well-Regulated.
>>
>Self explanatory. There must be a structured command organisation and,
>in the case of your second amendment, it is answerable to the State
>not the Federal government. Your National Guard units fit the bill
>admirably.
Absolutely wrong.
The term "well-regulated" meant fine tuned, smoothly working, as in a
"well regulated watch." (Ever see the old pendulum clocks with the
brand name "Regulator"? That's where the name came from.) In this
context, it meant skilled and disciplined, a citizen army that worked
smoothly and could hit their target. It has *Absolutely* nothing to
do with regulations coming down from the government.
>
>>Militia.
>>
>Military type organisation including but not necessarily limited to
>army, navy, air force, police, US National guard, security forces
>(public or private), coast guard, FBI, etc.
Absolutely wrong again.
Militia, in the time and the context of the second amendment, referred
to any person likely to be called up to serve in the military. At the
time that meant any male from age 16 to 45. Now, of course, it would
include women.
The FFs didn't like the idea of a standing army, and envisioned a
citizen corps ready to form an army when it was necessary. But if you
read their writings, you'll find that there is another, very important
reason they felt the citizens should be armed. It wasn't for
protecting themselves against criminals, and it wasn't for hunting.
Can you tell us what it was?
>The second amendment stops the Federal government from disallowing
>each State the right to have its own military force. It has nothing to
>do with the right of an individual person to carry a gun.
I'll give you two points for consistency - you're completely wrong
about everything.
>Are you allowed to carry a sword?
Allowed? Probably not. Should I be, under the second amendment?
Absolutely.
David Simpson
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> typed furiously:
I have read some of it and the parts I read indicated nothing about
any left or right leanings. In fact the current definition of left and
right with regard to politics is a very recent development.
Since you know nothing about my political leanings your attempt to
discredit me on those grounds falls flat on its face.
My post was an explanation of the meanings inherent in the wording as
commonly used in the late eighteenth century. You are trying to impose
twentieth century meanings onto those words and phrases which
seriously skews the meaning.
"personal condescendence" LOL. Thanks for the laugh. You really should
learn to spell. In matters such as this spelling and grammar is vital
if you wish to be understood correctly. I presume you mean
"correspondence".
>The first amendment refers to individual rights. The third amendment
>refers to individual rights. The fourth. . . etc. It's not until we
>get to the tenth that "the states" are mentioned. Yet, in a desperate
>attempt to twist the meaning of the second, lefties insist that the
>second refers to some amorphous mass, instead of the individuals that
>it obviously refers to.
>
If you re-read those Amendments you will see that the word "people" is
always used to refer to the citizens or population as a mass. When
referring to an individual the word "person", or another indicating an
individual, (e.g. accused) is used. Refer to Amendments four and five
in particular. In the Second Amendment the word "state" is introduced
so that it is obviously referring to the people as a mass or state. I
will agree that "state" is not used in any other amendment until the
Tenth although it does appear in the title of the ninth.
>Now, we're about to see how little you know of the subject.
LOL. It therefore appears that the gun lobby, in a desperate bid to
gain some credibility, are not always correct in their summations or
definitions. In fact they have been known to outright lie in their bid
to appear always right.
>
>>>Before we continue this discussing, please indicate your knowledge of
>>>the matter by providing with an explanation of what the following two
>>>terms mean:
>>>
>>>Well-Regulated.
>>>
>>Self explanatory. There must be a structured command organisation and,
>>in the case of your second amendment, it is answerable to the State
>>not the Federal government. Your National Guard units fit the bill
>>admirably.
>
>Absolutely wrong.
>
>The term "well-regulated" meant fine tuned, smoothly working, as in a
>"well regulated watch." (Ever see the old pendulum clocks with the
>brand name "Regulator"? That's where the name came from.) In this
>context, it meant skilled and disciplined, a citizen army that worked
>smoothly and could hit their target. It has *Absolutely* nothing to
>do with regulations coming down from the government.
>
Regulate 1. To control or direct by rule, principle, method etc. 2. to
adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc. 3. to
adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation 4. to put in good order.
Macquarie Budget Dictionary.
You are using only definitions 2 and 3. In my opinion, in the context
of the Second Amendment definition 1 is the probable use which backs
my story more than yours.
>>
>>>Militia.
>>>
>>Military type organisation including but not necessarily limited to
>>army, navy, air force, police, US National guard, security forces
>>(public or private), coast guard, FBI, etc.
>
>Absolutely wrong again.
>
>Militia, in the time and the context of the second amendment, referred
>to any person likely to be called up to serve in the military. At the
>time that meant any male from age 16 to 45. Now, of course, it would
>include women.
>
militia 1. A body of men enrolled for military service, called out
periodically for drill and exercise but for actual service only for
emergencies. 2. A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from
professional soldiers. 3. U.S. all able bodied males who are, or are
eligible to become, citizens and are more than 18 and not more than 45
years of age.
Macquarie Budget Dictionary.
You are using definition 3 which is only used in the USA and which was
*not* in use at the time of the Amendment. Therefore I, once again, am
far more correct.
>The FFs didn't like the idea of a standing army, and envisioned a
>citizen corps ready to form an army when it was necessary. But if you
>read their writings, you'll find that there is another, very important
>reason they felt the citizens should be armed. It wasn't for
>protecting themselves against criminals, and it wasn't for hunting.
>Can you tell us what it was?
>
>>The second amendment stops the Federal government from disallowing
>>each State the right to have its own military force. It has nothing to
>>do with the right of an individual person to carry a gun.
>
>I'll give you two points for consistency - you're completely wrong
>about everything.
>
Since the above published definitions prove that I am correct perhaps
you should fall on your sword before you prove your ignorance of the
factors that were in force at the time. You are talking from a modern
viewpoint which is not compatible with the viewpoints in force at that
time. You need to learn more about the English language as opposed to
the American corruption of that language.
>>Are you allowed to carry a sword?
>
>Allowed? Probably not. Should I be, under the second amendment?
>Absolutely.
>
Thank you. If you are not allowed to carry a sword or a pole arm then
why should you be allowed to carry a firearm? The answer is that, if
you are a member of a well regulated (controlled) citizen military
force, (e.g. National Guard) you are allowed. If not then not.
I suggest that you spend some time getting to understand the meaning
of the English language as used in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries before you discredit yourself completely.
Dave Hitt
Congratulations on finding a new way to evade the subject. I never
implied that the FFs writings were to the right or the left, just that
you read them, and learn just how wrong you are. The propaganda
you're spewing *now* is lefty foolishness.
>Since you know nothing about my political leanings your attempt to
>discredit me on those grounds falls flat on its face.
You're quoting the standard lefty line, note for note. You may not be
a lefty on other issues (frankly, you're not important enough for a
ten minute google search to determine that) but on this one, you're
100% liberal.
>
>My post was an explanation of the meanings inherent in the wording as
>commonly used in the late eighteenth century. You are trying to impose
>twentieth century meanings onto those words and phrases which
>seriously skews the meaning.
You've got that exactly backwards, Sparky. You're using modern day
definitions, ignoring the way the words were commonly used back then.
That's why I advised you to read the writings of the FFs. It will
make their intentions very clear.
>"personal condescendence" LOL. Thanks for the laugh. You really should
>learn to spell. In matters such as this spelling and grammar is vital
>if you wish to be understood correctly. I presume you mean
>"correspondence".
Oooo, a spelling lame! How impressive! I'm dyslexic, so I use a
spelling checker, and the quick skim I give to the results sometimes
lets errors like this through. (Once again, you're not important
enough for me to spend a lot of time scrutinizing my replies.) Since
you are so amused by dyslexia, you'll have great fun reading my posts.
(Do you laugh at, say, epileptics too?)
>>The first amendment refers to individual rights. The third amendment
>>refers to individual rights. The fourth. . . etc. It's not until we
>>get to the tenth that "the states" are mentioned. Yet, in a desperate
>>attempt to twist the meaning of the second, lefties insist that the
>>second refers to some amorphous mass, instead of the individuals that
>>it obviously refers to.
>>
>If you re-read those Amendments you will see that the word "people" is
>always used to refer to the citizens or population as a mass. When
>referring to an individual the word "person", or another indicating an
>individual, (e.g. accused) is used.
Absolute, ignorant, nonsense. "People" and "person" are used
interchangeably. The sixth, seventh, and eight amendments don't use
either word, though they are obviously directed at individuals.
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances"
An assembly is, by definition, a group of people, but it is an
individual right each person has. You, *as an individual*, have a
right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, "
Again, this is an *individual right* held by all the people.
> In the Second Amendment the word "state" is introduced
>so that it is obviously referring to the people as a mass or state. I
>will agree that "state" is not used in any other amendment until the
>Tenth although it does appear in the title of the ninth.
It is an introduction that explains the reason for the amendment,
nothing more, nothing less. It is the only amendment the FFs felt was
so important it deserved an explanation. It's safe to say that if the
FF knew the gun grabbers would use the explanation for the amendment
as an excuse to neuter it, they would have left it off.
>
>>Now, we're about to see how little you know of the subject.
>
>LOL. It therefore appears that the gun lobby, in a desperate bid to
>gain some credibility, are not always correct in their summations or
>definitions. In fact they have been known to outright lie in their bid
>to appear always right.
Which the gun grabbers would never, ever do, 'cause they're such fine
upstanding folks, dontcha know.
If you want to get sidetracked into the lies of the gun grabbers, we
can create another thread, but it will be encyclopedic in scope.
>>>>Before we continue this discussing, please indicate your knowledge of
>>>>the matter by providing with an explanation of what the following two
>>>>terms mean:
>>>>
>>>>Well-Regulated.
>>>>
>>>Self explanatory. There must be a structured command organisation and,
>>>in the case of your second amendment, it is answerable to the State
>>>not the Federal government. Your National Guard units fit the bill
>>>admirably.
>>
>>Absolutely wrong.
>>
>>The term "well-regulated" meant fine tuned, smoothly working, as in a
>>"well regulated watch." (Ever see the old pendulum clocks with the
>>brand name "Regulator"? That's where the name came from.) In this
>>context, it meant skilled and disciplined, a citizen army that worked
>>smoothly and could hit their target. It has *Absolutely* nothing to
>>do with regulations coming down from the government.
>>
>Regulate 1. To control or direct by rule, principle, method etc. 2. to
>adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc. 3. to
>adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation 4. to put in good order.
>Macquarie Budget Dictionary.
Perhaps you should expand your budget, and buy a better dictionary.
On second thought, don't bother - your little budget dictionary is
just fine for contemporary usage. But get the to a library, and look
up the definitions in some old dictionaries. You'll be surprised at
just how wrong you are. (Although, I'm sure, you'll rationalize you
way out of it.)
>
>You are using only definitions 2 and 3. In my opinion, in the context
>of the Second Amendment definition 1 is the probable use which backs
>my story more than yours.
>>>
>>>>Militia.
>>>>
>>>Military type organisation including but not necessarily limited to
>>>army, navy, air force, police, US National guard, security forces
>>>(public or private), coast guard, FBI, etc.
>>
>>Absolutely wrong again.
>>
>>Militia, in the time and the context of the second amendment, referred
>>to any person likely to be called up to serve in the military. At the
>>time that meant any male from age 16 to 45. Now, of course, it would
>>include women.
>>
>militia 1. A body of men enrolled for military service, called out
>periodically for drill and exercise but for actual service only for
>emergencies. 2. A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from
>professional soldiers. 3. U.S. all able bodied males who are, or are
>eligible to become, citizens and are more than 18 and not more than 45
>years of age.
>Macquarie Budget Dictionary.
See above.
>
>You are using definition 3 which is only used in the USA and which was
>*not* in use at the time of the Amendment. Therefore I, once again, am
>far more correct.
Only in your dreams, Sparky. Go to a library. Learn something.
>>The FFs didn't like the idea of a standing army, and envisioned a
>>citizen corps ready to form an army when it was necessary. But if you
>>read their writings, you'll find that there is another, very important
>>reason they felt the citizens should be armed. It wasn't for
>>protecting themselves against criminals, and it wasn't for hunting.
>>Can you tell us what it was?
>>
>>>The second amendment stops the Federal government from disallowing
>>>each State the right to have its own military force. It has nothing to
>>>do with the right of an individual person to carry a gun.
>>
>>I'll give you two points for consistency - you're completely wrong
>>about everything.
>>
>Since the above published definitions prove that I am correct perhaps
>you should fall on your sword before you prove your ignorance of the
>factors that were in force at the time. You are talking from a modern
>viewpoint which is not compatible with the viewpoints in force at that
>time. You need to learn more about the English language as opposed to
>the American corruption of that language.
By the way, the answer to the original question is that the FFs felt
that an armed citizenry was the best defense against the government
becoming tyrannical.
>
>>>Are you allowed to carry a sword?
>>
>>Allowed? Probably not. Should I be, under the second amendment?
>>Absolutely.
>>
>Thank you. If you are not allowed to carry a sword or a pole arm then
>why should you be allowed to carry a firearm? The answer is that, if
>you are a member of a well regulated (controlled) citizen military
>force, (e.g. National Guard) you are allowed. If not then not.
Wrong again, for what, the twentieth time? I've lost count. The fact
is I can carry a firearm, although there are rules, regulations, and,
depending on the firearm, permits that are necessary to stay out of
prison.
Now, look in the mirror, and repeat the following, until it sinks in:
>I suggest that you spend some time getting to understand the meaning
>of the English language as used in the late eighteenth and early
>nineteenth centuries before you discredit yourself completely.
---
David Simpson
<BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> typed furiously:
>On Tue, 20 May 2003 21:56:37 +0930, David Simpson
><faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Since you know nothing about my political leanings your attempt to
>>discredit me on those grounds falls flat on its face.
>
>You're quoting the standard lefty line, note for note. You may not be
>a lefty on other issues (frankly, you're not important enough for a
>ten minute google search to determine that) but on this one, you're
>100% liberal.
>
LOL. Now that sounds far more like a"lefty line".
>>
>>My post was an explanation of the meanings inherent in the wording as
>>commonly used in the late eighteenth century. You are trying to impose
>>twentieth century meanings onto those words and phrases which
>>seriously skews the meaning.
>
>You've got that exactly backwards, Sparky. You're using modern day
>definitions, ignoring the way the words were commonly used back then.
>That's why I advised you to read the writings of the FFs. It will
>make their intentions very clear.
>
When you gain a grounding in late eighteenth century English then try
coming back again.
>>"personal condescendence" LOL. Thanks for the laugh. You really should
>>learn to spell. In matters such as this spelling and grammar is vital
>>if you wish to be understood correctly. I presume you mean
>>"correspondence".
>
>Oooo, a spelling lame! How impressive! I'm dyslexic, so I use a
>spelling checker, and the quick skim I give to the results sometimes
>lets errors like this through. (Once again, you're not important
>enough for me to spend a lot of time scrutinizing my replies.) Since
>you are so amused by dyslexia, you'll have great fun reading my posts.
>(Do you laugh at, say, epileptics too?)
>
Poor little fellow. Has to try to hide behind dislexia.
>>>The first amendment refers to individual rights. The third amendment
>>>refers to individual rights. The fourth. . . etc. It's not until we
>>>get to the tenth that "the states" are mentioned. Yet, in a desperate
>>>attempt to twist the meaning of the second, lefties insist that the
>>>second refers to some amorphous mass, instead of the individuals that
>>>it obviously refers to.
>>>
>>If you re-read those Amendments you will see that the word "people" is
>>always used to refer to the citizens or population as a mass. When
>>referring to an individual the word "person", or another indicating an
>>individual, (e.g. accused) is used.
>
>Absolute, ignorant, nonsense. "People" and "person" are used
>interchangeably. The sixth, seventh, and eight amendments don't use
>either word, though they are obviously directed at individuals.
>
>"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>government for a redress of grievances"
>
An assembly of the people is referring to people in the mass not
individuals.
>An assembly is, by definition, a group of people, but it is an
>individual right each person has. You, *as an individual*, have a
>right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
>
As a group the people have the right to petition the government. A
single person is unlikely to get much of a hearing.
>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, "
>
>Again, this is an *individual right* held by all the people.
>
Again the people as a mass. If it was an individual right then the
word "person" would have been used in the first instance instead of
people.
>> In the Second Amendment the word "state" is introduced
>>so that it is obviously referring to the people as a mass or state. I
>>will agree that "state" is not used in any other amendment until the
>>Tenth although it does appear in the title of the ninth.
>
>It is an introduction that explains the reason for the amendment,
>nothing more, nothing less. It is the only amendment the FFs felt was
>so important it deserved an explanation. It's safe to say that if the
>FF knew the gun grabbers would use the explanation for the amendment
>as an excuse to neuter it, they would have left it off.
>>
That's absolutely correct. It was so important that the FF knew that
persons would misconstrue the meaning. That is why they stated that it
was necessary for a "well regulated militia" to be instituted if the
Federal government tried to take control of all military
establishments.
>>>Now, we're about to see how little you know of the subject.
>>
>>LOL. It therefore appears that the gun lobby, in a desperate bid to
>>gain some credibility, are not always correct in their summations or
>>definitions. In fact they have been known to outright lie in their bid
>>to appear always right.
>
>Which the gun grabbers would never, ever do, 'cause they're such fine
>upstanding folks, dontcha know.
>
Of course. LOL
>If you want to get sidetracked into the lies of the gun grabbers, we
>can create another thread, but it will be encyclopedic in scope.
>
Not interested in *your* lies.
LOL. Knowing the age of my dictionary I don't really see the need for
anything older. It would only give the same answers.
>>
>>You are using only definitions 2 and 3. In my opinion, in the context
>>of the Second Amendment definition 1 is the probable use which backs
>>my story more than yours.
>>>>
>>>>>Militia.
>>>>>
>>>>Military type organisation including but not necessarily limited to
>>>>army, navy, air force, police, US National guard, security forces
>>>>(public or private), coast guard, FBI, etc.
>>>
>>>Absolutely wrong again.
>>>
>>>Militia, in the time and the context of the second amendment, referred
>>>to any person likely to be called up to serve in the military. At the
>>>time that meant any male from age 16 to 45. Now, of course, it would
>>>include women.
>>>
>>militia 1. A body of men enrolled for military service, called out
>>periodically for drill and exercise but for actual service only for
>>emergencies. 2. A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from
>>professional soldiers. 3. U.S. all able bodied males who are, or are
>>eligible to become, citizens and are more than 18 and not more than 45
>>years of age.
>>Macquarie Budget Dictionary.
>
>See above.
>
>>
>>You are using definition 3 which is only used in the USA and which was
>>*not* in use at the time of the Amendment. Therefore I, once again, am
>>far more correct.
>
>Only in your dreams, Sparky. Go to a library. Learn something.
>
Perhaps you should get a real grounding in the English language "as
she is spoke" before you try arguing from a losing standpoint.
>>>The FFs didn't like the idea of a standing army, and envisioned a
>>>citizen corps ready to form an army when it was necessary. But if you
>>>read their writings, you'll find that there is another, very important
>>>reason they felt the citizens should be armed. It wasn't for
>>>protecting themselves against criminals, and it wasn't for hunting.
>>>Can you tell us what it was?
>>>
>>>>The second amendment stops the Federal government from disallowing
>>>>each State the right to have its own military force. It has nothing to
>>>>do with the right of an individual person to carry a gun.
>>>
>>>I'll give you two points for consistency - you're completely wrong
>>>about everything.
>>>
>>Since the above published definitions prove that I am correct perhaps
>>you should fall on your sword before you prove your ignorance of the
>>factors that were in force at the time. You are talking from a modern
>>viewpoint which is not compatible with the viewpoints in force at that
>>time. You need to learn more about the English language as opposed to
>>the American corruption of that language.
>
>By the way, the answer to the original question is that the FFs felt
>that an armed citizenry was the best defense against the government
>becoming tyrannical.
>
In a "well regulated militia" not as a bunch of red-neck, gun toting
bushwacking individuals.
>>
>>>>Are you allowed to carry a sword?
>>>
>>>Allowed? Probably not. Should I be, under the second amendment?
>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>Thank you. If you are not allowed to carry a sword or a pole arm then
>>why should you be allowed to carry a firearm? The answer is that, if
>>you are a member of a well regulated (controlled) citizen military
>>force, (e.g. National Guard) you are allowed. If not then not.
>
>Wrong again, for what, the twentieth time? I've lost count. The fact
>is I can carry a firearm, although there are rules, regulations, and,
>depending on the firearm, permits that are necessary to stay out of
>prison.
>
No I'm not wrong. I have no objection to your owning a gun provided
you abide by the necessary regulations. I do object to those who try
to imply that the Second Amendment allows you to own, or possess, any
weaponry without restriction. It does not do so as is apparent by the
language used in the couching of the Amendment and the precursors that
led up to the final wording.
>Now, look in the mirror, and repeat the following, until it sinks in:
>
>>I suggest that you spend some time getting to understand the meaning
>>of the English language as used in the late eighteenth and early
>>nineteenth centuries before you discredit yourself completely.
>
You are so thoroughly discredited that you are starting to bore me.
This subject is also not pertinent to the group which I read so you
can expect no further replies from me.
I apologise to those other groups which have been subjected to this
cross posting. I can't really see that any of them have anything to do
with this subject.
Dave Hitt
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>>You've got that exactly backwards, Sparky. You're using modern day
>>definitions, ignoring the way the words were commonly used back then.
>>That's why I advised you to read the writings of the FFs. It will
>>make their intentions very clear.
>>
>When you gain a grounding in late eighteenth century English then try
>coming back again.
Been there, done that. Please don't try to hide your ignorance by
pretending you have too. It's too damn obiovus you have no idea what
you're talking about.
>>>"personal condescendence" LOL. Thanks for the laugh. You really should
>>>learn to spell. In matters such as this spelling and grammar is vital
>>>if you wish to be understood correctly. I presume you mean
>>>"correspondence".
>>
>>Oooo, a spelling lame! How impressive! I'm dyslexic, so I use a
>>spelling checker, and the quick skim I give to the results sometimes
>>lets errors like this through. (Once again, you're not important
>>enough for me to spend a lot of time scrutinizing my replies.) Since
>>you are so amused by dyslexia, you'll have great fun reading my posts.
>>(Do you laugh at, say, epileptics too?)
>>
>Poor little fellow. Has to try to hide behind dislexia.
Condescension! How impressive, especially when combined with a
spelling lame.
>>>>The first amendment refers to individual rights. The third amendment
>>>>refers to individual rights. The fourth. . . etc. It's not until we
>>>>get to the tenth that "the states" are mentioned. Yet, in a desperate
>>>>attempt to twist the meaning of the second, lefties insist that the
>>>>second refers to some amorphous mass, instead of the individuals that
>>>>it obviously refers to.
>>>>
>>>If you re-read those Amendments you will see that the word "people" is
>>>always used to refer to the citizens or population as a mass. When
>>>referring to an individual the word "person", or another indicating an
>>>individual, (e.g. accused) is used.
>>
>>Absolute, ignorant, nonsense. "People" and "person" are used
>>interchangeably. The sixth, seventh, and eight amendments don't use
>>either word, though they are obviously directed at individuals.
>>
>>"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>>government for a redress of grievances"
>>
>An assembly of the people is referring to people in the mass not
>individuals.
There are no individuals in a mass? What is an assembly made up of,
Sparky?
You're getting more and more desperate, and it's fun to watch. But it
is getting tiresome.
>>An assembly is, by definition, a group of people, but it is an
>>individual right each person has. You, *as an individual*, have a
>>right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
>>
>As a group the people have the right to petition the government. A
>single person is unlikely to get much of a hearing.
Desperation, thy name is David Simpson!
>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>>papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, "
>>
>>Again, this is an *individual right* held by all the people.
>>
>Again the people as a mass. If it was an individual right then the
>word "person" would have been used in the first instance instead of
>people.
Like I said, you're getting tiresome, boy. Repeating your mistakes
doesn't make them right, it just shows that you're not only ignorant
of the facts, you're too stupid to know just how ignorant you are (or
how to correct the problem.)
>>> In the Second Amendment the word "state" is introduced
>>>so that it is obviously referring to the people as a mass or state. I
>>>will agree that "state" is not used in any other amendment until the
>>>Tenth although it does appear in the title of the ninth.
>>
>>It is an introduction that explains the reason for the amendment,
>>nothing more, nothing less. It is the only amendment the FFs felt was
>>so important it deserved an explanation. It's safe to say that if the
>>FF knew the gun grabbers would use the explanation for the amendment
>>as an excuse to neuter it, they would have left it off.
>>>
>That's absolutely correct. It was so important that the FF knew that
>persons would misconstrue the meaning. That is why they stated that it
>was necessary for a "well regulated militia" to be instituted if the
>Federal government tried to take control of all military
>establishments.
Continuing to miss the point entirely, I see. Sigh.
This is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to the "Special"
class.
>>Wrong again, for what, the twentieth time? I've lost count. The fact
>>is I can carry a firearm, although there are rules, regulations, and,
>>depending on the firearm, permits that are necessary to stay out of
>>prison.
>>
>No I'm not wrong. I have no objection to your owning a gun provided
>you abide by the necessary regulations. I do object to those who try
>to imply that the Second Amendment allows you to own, or possess, any
>weaponry without restriction. It does not do so as is apparent by the
>language used in the couching of the Amendment and the precursors that
>led up to the final wording.
So you can't understand the phrase "shall not be infringed" either.
Gee, big surprise.
You're tiresome, boy, just repeating the same mistakes over and over
again as if that proves something. Free clue: It doesn't. 'Nother
free clue: Go to a library (that's a big building with books in it)
and learn something. Then, maybe, you can sit at the grownup table.
Until then, I'm writing you off as just to dumb and boring to bother
with any longer.
You may have the last word, boy.
David
I live in Canada.
We do not have a "right to bear arms".
I do not know of anyone who ever got shot.
Columbine is in the United States, they do have a "right to bear arms".
Canada rocks.
I thought I should keep it simple for you. >;-)
Dave Hitt <BoydoIhat...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:sbgqcvsikdn6sh3dr...@4ax.com: