imported post
CLASS !!! "tap" "tap" "tap" come to order please.
( Teacher tapping a pencil on His desk )
Now, instead of dumping on Steve for lack of iambic pentameter, run on sentence structure, butchering 1st person, possessive pronoun and adjective possession
( You boy's in the back row pay attention
)
So, *sigh, Honorable war vet's, real men & women, boys girls, itinerant English teachers, and wandering dispossessed minstrels of high school level defamation, lonely shut in Republican bloggers, social misfits living in mountain cabin's, divorced and now full time cyber bloggers , Micheal Savage Nation, and you older Alzheimer's victims: welcome to my opinion.
Since this is the General Discussion section and I am the "OP" doing OC in OR with a CCP and test clean of any STD / VD and just got back from Micky D's in my BVD's , now back on my p.c not afraid to be non PC with a cup of green T,lol.
I shal resume my rant, this time "high brow"
I have taken the dual risk of being gramer <----- is that spelled right lol ) bashed.
Bashed for a stream of contemporaneous thoughts, secondary to spell check, and taken to task for any and everything I say that is non PC (homosexual gun toter's not withstanding )
NEW SUBJECT:
Risk # 3: Lets take a peek at how the 2nd Amendment can be used against You. if interpreted wrongly by anti's, and how does God fit into the 2nd Amendment.
The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Contrary to the interpretations of the anti's, with a PHD on my side in this explanation does this constitute a present participle, rather than a clause.
:shock: whah huh ?
HELP DESK: It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"), and so the right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
Right or Wrong ?
Pre Heller vs DC / SURVEY SAY'S: The sentence above does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
:quirky dig that semi colon, it's a beauty lol.
GOD:
The right ( 2nd ) is not granted by the amendment standing alone; its existence / pre-existance is assumed.
The preexistnace is presumed to be there much as we hold this truth as all the others penned at the same time to be self evident , and as such our "Creator" (not sperm donor) has pronounced it/ them inalienable.
The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate (religious and sacrid) for the sake of ensuring a militia.
Ok Mr smarty pants Poindexter conservative gun nut tin foil hat wearing word smith-ie, so were is your well regulated militia pal ? :X
Glad You asked, so does a militia have to exist in order to keep & bear arm's ?
A: Like a null contract that does not bind one to the other, no such condition is expressed or implied.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia.
No condition is stated. No condition is implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of the people or of a free state.
The phrase " A well regulated Milita" means "subject to regulations of a superior authority" but not the government nor the authority or governance of said government. This is in direct accordance with the desire of the writers ( Founding Fathers) for civilian control over the military.
Some say that "well regulated" historically means "well equipped" to this I have no argument because if substituted it would still not deny the fact of the inalienability of the right to keep, bear and defend oneself with arm's, but enhance it to mean many & better arm's. ( Not to be confused with Regulators a historic southern militia.)
What say You, You in the back row shooing verbal spit wad's ????
Who Me :what:what huhhhh
