Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

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."

You have the wrong wording as it was ratified.



Per the supreme court that coofftopic makes all the difference and the word arms was looked in to see how it was defined at the time. All ready there are plenty of restrictions on arms in fact more the was intended.

All citizens are part of the militia and well regulated means well trained which we are lacking and the original purpose of the NRA was to help with that.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Yeah, I mean 'well regulated' could mean anything
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

To my knowledge of the English language, the word 'regulated' has never been a synonym for 'trained'.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

It is totally purple and vertical for anyone to misuse the word illogical in such a Burlesque manner. Plain fact.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

It certainly could mean background checks and CHL licenses and bans on felons and domestic violence abusers...all of which we already have. When "militia" means "every man of fighting age," "well-regulated" clearly isn't referring to governmental organizations like the National Guard.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

And the coofftopic makes it separate and assures the right of gun ownership for private citizens.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

The militia statement had nothing to do with they restrictions the different views of what infringe is where the restrictions came in.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Anyone who thinks that the coofftopic in that sentence makes those two statements independent presumably failed high school English. Either that, or the US Constitution has an egregious graofftopictical mistake in it.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Are we really getting into a debate about the Second Amendment and what it says? I thought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution cleared is up pretty well?
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Yeah, those Supreme Court guys who have dedicated their entire life to an education and application/making of Law are just a bunch of idiots
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

You can argue about policy, you can argue about ideology, but you can't argue about graofftopicr.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Does that sentence make sense? Because it looks like a fragment to me. It doesn't make sense without the following clauses.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I'm more willing to accept the Supreme Court's ruling over the subject then I am yours. To be honest you sound like a hobbyist martial artist critiquing a professional fighter about what they need to be doing and how they are messing up. I would look at what you're saying a little differently if you weren't all "you're an idiot for believing that", because that implies you believe your interpretation is better then somebody who has spent their entire life dedicated to the study, application, interpretation, and making of laws. I would say this if they ruled it to be what you're suggesting as well, it just happens that they didn't.


Edit: Also, have you ever read the crap lawyers write, and what laws sound like? Being that my wife is going through law school I get exposed to it a lot and I can tell you it sure as heck doesn't make sense to me a lot of times and I often interpret things an entirely different way (to which my wife politely tells me I'm an idiot and corrects me over) then what they intend to say.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I'm not making a legal interpretation - that is the Supreme Court's prerogative. They can decide that the sentence means 'all ginger headed children are to receive federally funded kittens' and that would be the legal interpretation from that day on. I am making a graofftopictical interpretation. That sentence is not a list - that coofftopic is effectively a 'therefore'.

The sentence, as dictated by the laws of English graofftopicr, reads

"A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Any other reading does not make a valid English sentence. Now how the court's choose to interpret that sentence is up to them.

Lawyers don't get to ignore the rules of graofftopicr - in fact, they are among the few professions who absolutely cannot be permitted to make graofftopictical mistakes.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Tell me what exactly the point in arguing graofftopicr over what the Supreme Court actually ruled is in a thread like this? The debate has been about what different people believe could benefit the people of the U.S. and reduce gun violence. I don't see the debate over graofftopicr going up to the Supreme Court again anytime soon either (watch the video I posted with Biden speaking, who says the subject of what the 2nd says is not up for debate).

I don't see how arguing graofftopictical error is beneficial to the thread. What matters is the Supreme Court's ruling and how we can adjust our laws to respect their decision and help to reduce gun violence. I like reading this thread and if it is just going to wind down into graofftopicr for no real good reason I think it's a loss for debate on the current issues over an irrelevant subject.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Someone (not you) brought up the graofftopicr of that sentence and tried to twist it to match his own political leanings. It shows either a complete lack of integrity, or a poor grasp of English. Either way, it needed correcting. I've made my point and I'll leave it at that.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I was one of those people. Your willingness to level ad hominem attacks against other members of this forum is offensive. I disagree with you but I don't attack your integrity or your intelligence. I would ask you to start doing the same.

You're saying that anyone who agrees with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of a United States founding document lacks integrity or lacks English understanding? Come on man. I've been practicing law for six years and I'm a partner at a midsize firm here in Oregon. The coofftopic separates a recital from the operative clause. Everything before the coofftopic explains the motivation of the operative clause but does not limit the operative clause strictly to the purpose described in the recital. The Supreme Court got it right. What's your background for interpreting American legal documents that allows you, not just to take a different position (which is your right), but to demean the character of anyone who disagrees with you?
 
Story from the local paper today, somewhat relevant to the thread. This is the sort of thing that happens regularly but never makes it beyond the local news:



http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130125/NEWS07/301250351

Background on the Sureٌos for those who don't know. I don't think the UK has anything like these guys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure%C3%B1os
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Mitlov...by what criteria would you deny the Aurora shooter a couple of guns and some ammo but still allow yourself the same?
That's the crux of my point really.
It's not ideal because we don't know his full background and obviously I'm not asking you to reveal yours if you don't want to but that the thrust of my argument.

What about the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter (because the shooter used her guns)?
She sounds like a bit of a survivalist type person but that's not something you can record and make decisions on.

Denying a gun to someone with a criminal record but allowing someone without one to own one is a simple either/or distinction. If such background checks aren't mandatory for EVERY movement of a gun from one person to another then that really is crazy.

Denying a gun to someone with verifiable and documented mental health issues is also another, failry simple, yes/no distinction when deciding who gets a gun.
Personally I'd worry about making such a distinction because it implies people with mental health issues lose the right to defend themselves to the same degree as other people (not something that happens in a society where no one has a gun), but such a distinction could be made.

But beyond those obvious things how do you decide who gets a gun and who doesn't?

Obviously guns can be used for self defence. That's not in debate as far as I'm concerned. It's all the other stuff they can be used for that's the problem.
What I feel is that, on balance and taking into account all the murders, robberies, accidental shootings, suicides, missfires, school shootings etc etc that self defence use is cancelled out and into a negative outcome where widespread gun ownership causes more problems than they solve.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

If I say something clearly, factually wrong, I expect to be called on it. There are only two explanations for a person making that particular reading of that sentence - either they are deliberately distorting it to meet their own views or they do not know the rules of English graofftopicr. I do not consider it an attack to point that out.

So, what you're saying now is that you agree with me on the meaning of that sentence?

I've said repeatedly that I'm not making judgments about legal interpretations, only linguistic ones and since you agree with me on that linguistic interpretation, what's your problem?

I disagree with that legal interpretation (i think the recital clause does form a limitation, why else include it?), but I recognise that it is the Supreme Court's to make, but I have no patience with people trying to change the meaning of language to make their positions easier to justify. I wont apologise for that.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I went by the supreme court's legal interpretation of the meaning of the statements and other things.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-heller-scalias-majority-opinion/ed-whelan#

And I don't expect you to apologies for any thing, you are going by graofftopicr and I and the supreme court are looking at the coofftopic as intent.

Also the 2nd has no effect on your life whatsoever. "Our house our rules, Your house your rules"
 
Back
Top