Who said anything about a moderator?
rebut it. And don't embarrass yourself with "shall not be infringed".
JUST weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in American history, in Las Vegas, America faced its fifth-worst attack, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on November 5th. Both assailants were armed with military-style rifles. Why does American law let people buy such weapons?
The answer is the Second Amendment to the cons ution, which 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.” (Commas were used differently in the 18th century, but these do not affect meaning.) Gun-rights advocates insist the second half of that sentence is absolute.
Those in favour of tighter regulation insist that the framers used the first clause to tie gun-rights to the need for a militia. Since no American state has the sort of militia that existed in the 1780s (consisting of all able-bodied men, subject to call-up at any time and expected to bring their own weapons), this would make wider curbs on guns legal.
What is that clause doing there? In the 1960s Paul Grice, a philosopher, wrote his seminal works on the unspoken rules of language, how often people observe them, and what they do when they break them. He codified these into several maxims of conversation now famous among linguists. One is the “maxim of relevance”: if someone randomly veers off-topic they break that maxim. The other is the “maxim of quan y”: speakers should say enough, but not too much.
These maxims can be broken. But because the maxims are so widely understood and observed, Grice argued, breaking them is significant. When you hear a speaker break them, your first instinct is to look for new meaning. For example, imagine a man arriving home, and his wife asking: “Where were you?” If he replies: “I am not cheating on you,” she would be right to be worried. Perhaps the information was supposed to be reassuring. But by breaking the maxim of relevance it sends an entirely different message.
Or take the maxim of quan y. Information should only be included for a reason. So what is the militia clause there for? Antonin Scalia tried to explain it in the Supreme Court’s opinion in DC v er, which in 2008 upheld an individual right to own and carry guns for hunting, self-defence or, really, for any reason. Like Grice, Scalia thought that the clause should be relevant. In fact, he insisted that it was. England’s Stuart kings had disarmed those likely to be disloyal. So an arms-keeping citizenry ready to muster as a militia, even against its own rulers, was indeed “necessary for the security of a free state”. Scalia said that prefatory clauses can announce a law’s purpose—but cannot restrict it.
Why have them, then? The writers of the cons ution could have included all manner of philosophical navel-gazing in the prefatory clause: “The right of self-defence being inalienable…” and so forth. Some state cons utions did mention self-defence in their gun-rights clauses. The federal cons ution does not. This makes the prefatory clause a rather odd bit of throat-clearing. If the framers meant to include self-defence, it violates the maxim of quan y by saying both too little (it did not mention self-defence) and too much (by not being needed at all).
A linguist at San Diego State University, Jeffrey Kaplan, argues that the prefatory clause is false. America, despite having no more militias, remains “a free state”, as do many other countries. He says that in parallel constructions like “Today being St Patrick’s Day, I will buy drinks for everyone in the bar,” if it turns out today is not in fact St Patrick’s Day, the promise in the main clause needs “repair”: a chance to cancel the offer or negotiate something else with the patrons. He put the St Patrick’s Day problem to 50 experimental subjects—80% said that if the presupposition was false, the offer was no longer operative.
In a second experiment, he invented a statute: “Water being an abundant resource, property owners shall have an unrestricted right to irrigate their property as they see fit.” If, a century later, water is now scarce, is the law still in effect? Of those who replied, 81% said no.
It is hard to believe the framers would be happy with the result of their work. America remains bitterly divided over guns, thanks to a bizarrely worded amendment that is introduced by a statement about militias that is superfluous (if Scalia and gun advocates are right), and was arguably never true at all. At the very least, it has not stood the test of time.
This article appeared in the Books and arts section of the print edition under the headline "Right and wrong on bearing arms"
Who said anything about a moderator?
no one else cares, but youre right, its public so im sure youll easily be able to show one post where i denied it. should be easier to look up than emails.
logging in to an alt takes three clicks. posting about an alt repeatedly as you do takes a lot more effort. lol rent free
"Do you have admin access to view usernames and passwords through the UI or do you have direct access to the ST database?" -You
"no one else cares"
Pretends to have an audience
logs in under his outed alt to save face
still living with mom at age 30
I don't disagree with it.
This is why I said you should go for an outright ban on guns. If there is no 2nd Amendment "spirit" that protects gun ownership, then why is it even legal for non military folks to own firearms?
Why just go for the semi-auto? The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify and being moot is being moot, all encompassing moot in fact.
Do you lack the courage?
Who said anything about a moderator?
you sad idiot, my entire point is there is no audience.
beyond people now knowing that you look up emails when someone makes you mad, its basically just the two of us engaging at all in this ongoing discussion about my alts.
which makes it doubly sad that you have to make up to feel some kind of reward
Stare decisis.
Nice rebuttal by the way. Seems you agree with the losing side
Who else has admin access?
desperate times
There are some semantic issues with their stance. Overall they have a point, but they don't necessarily make a solid case while presenting it. Water rights when water is abundant /= "right" where a bill of rights is concerned. The right to water does not provide abundance of water, however in the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is to provide a free state. Just because a free state exists already doesn't mean the foundation for it can be pulled away.
Also, a statute isn't the same as a right. A statute is just a law.
I can successfully argue both sides, but the left will do nothing about their stance, except repeat it. They are too afraid to take a hard stance on the issue, because voters might not like it.
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...5&context=wmlr
This explains the nuances much better than that hack of an article
"people knowing"
"there is no audience"
Tell mom I said hi!
Are you denying you accessed the email address Spuminator and I used to register?
lol. You cherry pick that example as the crux of the argument. I don't think you understood what you were reading.
You haven't yet.
The LEFT!!!
I would hope so. It's a 20+ page legal study.
"beyond"
that means "aside from"
since we both know you dont know anything personally about me or where i live, its really sad watching this pretense, but keep trying.
We'll go with that narrative for now
Sure I did.
Yes I have.You haven't yet.
As in "left behind"The LEFT!!!
Vs a liberal piece from another country.I would hope so. It's a 20+ page legal study.
Explain "accessed"
disagree
No you haven't. All you've done is bolster the argument for gun control. Make the arguement for "shall not be infringed" without saying shall not be infringed.
as in, that's an embarrassing response is that a Kirk Cameron reference?
Another country? As if someone from another country can't analyze American law. You're a ing moron.
you were so emotionally affected by posts from anonymous men on the internet that you accessed their emails to out their alts and research personal information about them.
When did the BoR become American law?
The argument for the 2nd has to support the 2nd. How can someone argue "shall not be infringed" any other way? It's like saying "argue "do not enter" without saying "do not enter". What you want me to do is argue for gun ownership, but the 2nd doesn't support gun ownership. It simply states that a pre-existing right will not be taken away or neutered by congress. It doesn't grant the right, else it would say so. The language implies a right already existed. So you'd have to go back beyond that amendment to find the spirit of the right to bear arms. I've done so on this forum. Use the search feature.
Let's look at the 4th:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Notice it doesn't grant a right, but grants protections for what was presumed to be existing rights. Notice people aren't saying that the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, because that would fly in the face of the actual statement in the amendment itself. So "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" are being used in similar ways. However the latter also includes encroachments on rights that the founding fathers knew would happen (based on experience) that might not be considered as an actual binary go/no go for "right to bear arms", like the stuff some of you are proposing.
So triggered you had to resurrect the Adam Lameburt account just to try to fish more information from me. You have no idea what I know or don't, and if you think I'd actually tell you.
Too vulgar a display of power. In time, in time.
What personal information did I access about you or anyone else? Be specific.
Again, explain "accessed". Again, be specific.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)