Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
President Obama!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 2000905" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>I get it bro, you failed English in high school.</p><p></p><p>The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt.</p><p></p><p>Lets try it your way.</p><p></p><p>Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms.</p><p></p><p>So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment??</p><p></p><p>"a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing.</p><p></p><p>What about the second part?</p><p></p><p>"being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state? </p><p></p><p>Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing.</p><p></p><p>The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing.</p><p></p><p>Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense?</p><p></p><p>If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792??</p><p></p><p>If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act??</p><p></p><p>What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them?</p><p></p><p>How do you reconcile this though process?</p><p></p><p>You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire.</p><p></p><p>But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage.</p><p></p><p>TOS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 2000905, member: 17969"] I get it bro, you failed English in high school. The ELIMINATION of the comma in the second amendment is what the gun freaks want to do to make the second amendment sound like something it isnt. Lets try it your way. Lets say that the framers wanted you to CONNECT the third fragment and the fourth fragment together, and eliminate the comma in between to make a stand alone sentence giving you the right to bear arms. So, what happens to the rest of the second amendment?? "a well regulated militia"... : What is that suppose to mean "standing alone" in the sentence?? A well regulated what" How were they to be regulated? Who was to regulate them? Why were they to be regulated? Without further explanation or definition in the second amendment, "a well regulated militia" means nothing. What about the second part? "being necessary for the security of the state"... : what security of the state? Who was to secure the state? Why were they to secure the state? How were they to secure the state? Without the entire sentence including the commas, the SUBJECT "a well regulated militia", means absolutely nothing. The qualifiers that follow the subject by COMMAS, tell you in simple english, that the entire sentence and structure of the second amendment is a military phrasing and not a civilian phrasing. Why would the founders spell out each individual right in the first amendment, and then in the second amendment, construct a convoluted sentence that makes no sense? If the second amendment wasnt designed to address state militias, then why the need for the militia act of 1792?? If the founders wanted yahoos with guns protecting the country, why then, were the militias regulated by the militia act?? What is it about the COMMAS in the sentence that cause you to ignore them? Why, if the last two fragments that are separated by a comma are designed (in your mind) to be connected together, are they then separated from the first two commas that preceed them? How do you reconcile this though process? You gun freaks will do and say anything to hang on to your guns. You couldnt live your lives in peace without them. You are so empty deep inside, that your guns provide you with the courage you so badly desire. But my friend, guns dont give you courage, they just empower you to feel in a superior position to an unarmed person, and that my friend isnt courage. TOS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
President Obama!
Top