Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1123027" data-attributes="member: 17969">My link brought about the discussions of both sides of the argument.&nbsp; What you extrapolate from them is your business.&nbsp; You point out a segment of the &quot;opinion&quot; of the piece provided by the CATO institute that begins with &quot;IF TRUE&quot;....&nbsp; you cant leave out those words.Then, it goes on to describe the CATO institutes opinion on the verbal of the second amendment.The point being, the second amendment was a military clause at the time, and being that it was, attempting to apply a &quot;private citizen&quot; interpretation to it today makes no sense given the structure of the second amendment.NOWHERE in the second amendment will you find a stand alone sentence that is self defining that states that &quot;The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed&quot;.&nbsp; Nor will you find any stand alone sentence that says a private person can own, possess, transport or carry a weapon.How anyone translates the word &quot;BEAR&quot; arms to mean OWNERSHIP is beyond me.&nbsp; I would like to see an definition from anyone where the word &quot;BEAR&quot; means ownership, possession, transportation or carrying.In reality, the word &quot;BEAR&quot; means nothing without the entire sentence contained in the structure of the second amendment.The preamble of the sentence &quot;A WELL REGULATED MILITIA&quot; is followed by a comma, and that comma means the next portion of the sentence applies to the preamble. &quot;being necessary to the security of a free state&quot;, then separated by another comma which means the next portion also applies to the preamble &quot;the rights of the people to keep and bear arms&quot; which is separated by another comma, which means the next portion applies to the preamble &quot;shall not be infringed&quot;.Originally, the second amendment was written like this:&quot;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.[SUP][/SUP]&quot;It only contained ONE comma.&nbsp; It was clear the intention of the sentence had a military meaning, in the form of a Militia.&nbsp; Further, the congress constructed and passed a guideline for the application of the second amendment in the form of the militia act of 1792.The NRA and GUN owners themselves have gone to extremes to IGNORE these facts, and the NRA itself leaves out the preamble of the second amendment alltogether.Most people think the following sentence is in the second amendment:&quot;THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED&quot;...Of course, thats not in the second amendment.&nbsp; Its two &quot;fractions&quot; of a larger sentence combined to form a new, stand alone sentence.In reality, the second amendment is OUTDATED and should be repealed by congress and replaced with actual language that defines gun ownership and the limitations of the need for guns given the fact that the USA now has a standing army and a full military complex to protect the USA and there would be NO NEED for private citizens to arm themselves to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction.PeaceTOS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1123027, member: 17969"] My link brought about the discussions of both sides of the argument. What you extrapolate from them is your business. You point out a segment of the "opinion" of the piece provided by the CATO institute that begins with "IF TRUE".... you cant leave out those words. Then, it goes on to describe the CATO institutes opinion on the verbal of the second amendment. The point being, the second amendment was a military clause at the time, and being that it was, attempting to apply a "private citizen" interpretation to it today makes no sense given the structure of the second amendment. NOWHERE in the second amendment will you find a stand alone sentence that is self defining that states that "The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Nor will you find any stand alone sentence that says a private person can own, possess, transport or carry a weapon. How anyone translates the word "BEAR" arms to mean OWNERSHIP is beyond me. I would like to see an definition from anyone where the word "BEAR" means ownership, possession, transportation or carrying. In reality, the word "BEAR" means nothing without the entire sentence contained in the structure of the second amendment. The preamble of the sentence "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is followed by a comma, and that comma means the next portion of the sentence applies to the preamble. "being necessary to the security of a free state", then separated by another comma which means the next portion also applies to the preamble "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" which is separated by another comma, which means the next portion applies to the preamble "shall not be infringed". Originally, the second amendment was written like this: "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.[SUP][/SUP]" It only contained ONE comma. It was clear the intention of the sentence had a military meaning, in the form of a Militia. Further, the congress constructed and passed a guideline for the application of the second amendment in the form of the militia act of 1792. The NRA and GUN owners themselves have gone to extremes to IGNORE these facts, and the NRA itself leaves out the preamble of the second amendment alltogether. Most people think the following sentence is in the second amendment: "THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... Of course, thats not in the second amendment. Its two "fractions" of a larger sentence combined to form a new, stand alone sentence. In reality, the second amendment is OUTDATED and should be repealed by congress and replaced with actual language that defines gun ownership and the limitations of the need for guns given the fact that the USA now has a standing army and a full military complex to protect the USA and there would be NO NEED for private citizens to arm themselves to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction. Peace TOS [/QUOTE]

Verification