So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Rustic]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

Sounds like you're ignorant of both Marx and the Constitution.

It says buy more guns and ammo...

 

[Rustic]

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

The US Constitution. Feel free to pick up a copy some time.

It starts out "clearly the framers"??
Na, your making sh!t up...

Sorry if you cannot comprehend simple English phrases.

Clearly it says nothing about any gun control...

 

[LOki]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

Sounds like you're ignorant of both Marx and the Constitution.

It's more like you're all the 3 Stooges.

 

[LOki]

Abortion.

fetuses aren't people.

Same response as southern Democrats gave when asked about the slaves they kept: Black people aren't people, they are property. So that makes it OK.

Some things never change.

Such as the ignorance of most conservatives, this post being one of many examples.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, as the issue of privacy rights is in no way related to slavery.

But the concept of personhood is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office, would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these Democrats keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

 

[2aguy]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office, would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these Democrats keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

Because their real goal is banning guns for non military, non police civilians…….so they have to play games with the laws……but they are like snakes…..constrictor snakes squeeze their prey each time the prey takes a breath smothering them……anti gunners are the same way…each law fails to do what they say they want….leading to calls for the next level of law that will also fail…but slowly constricts access to law abiding gun owners….once they get enough political power they will then ban the guns….

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

No, you have ignored repeated attempts to explain it to you...are those blinders you are wearing partisan, or just something you picked up in the Ignorant section of Walmart?

aaaand chalk up yet one MORE failure to address the question. This time with a trip to Mal-Wart.

Plus ça change....

I'm sorry, but I am not a miracle worker...I cannot make you able to read and comprehend what you either can't, or simply refuse to read and comprehend. I would suggest the fail is staring back at you in your mirror. But I think you know that...which is why you must resort to bluff and bluster and bulltwinkle.

Likewise I cannot read what has never been posted. That's why I pose questions that cannot be answered -- because the silence itself is eloquent.

Can't say I ever heard fingers in the ears described as "eloquent" before.

 

[LOki]

So, why do the Democrats so virulently oppose the only method that has actually worked to reduce mass shootings: Letting everybody carry who wants to. Most people still wouldn't bother, but a few would. And the nutcase wanting to shoot up the next school or shopping mall or post office, would know there's a probably a few armed people in the crowd he's about to attack. And he won't know which ones they are, or what direction a bullet might come from. And a number of the recent mass shooters have carefully avoided places where there might be armed people on the premises, choosing so-called "gun free zones" where the liberals' laws are in full effect.

Why do these Democrats keep pushing their failed "solutions" after it has become obvious they don't work, and avoiding the solutions that do work?

Answer:

 

[Cecilie1200]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

What's clear is that, during high school, you were smoking weed behind the gym. One can only imagine what you think the 18th century was like, since you have shown us that your historical acumen matches your English mastery.

Once again for the "I have a vagina so I don't need a brain" crowd (yes, I'm looking at you, Cornball): "militia" did not mean the National Guard, or anything like them. It meant private citizens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

After she is elected President.

So yes, the week after she wins the Miss America pageant. And little green Martians invade Times Square.

 

[Pogo]

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

 

[Rustic]

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

So, buy more guns and ammo??

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

Just when I think you're as incoherent as you could possibly be, you prove me wrong.

 

[LOki]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); ...

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.

But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power.

"All of the sudden"? Cupcake, the fact that the people possess ultimate power was the revolutionary idea that validated the creation of the United States of America.

The Constitution explicitly asserts that the Federal Government derives its power FROM the People. The People are the only source of all the government's power.

OF COURSE the framers were all for people having ultimate power... it's what the whole revolution was about!

Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I).

Utter nonsense!

The electoral college was not created to disenfranchise the People; amongst other reasons involving "intrigues", it was created because it was not feasible to properly inform the whole body of sovereigns so that they could all competently exercise their franchise in a timely manner. It was more practical to designate qualified electoral delegates from each state to perform the duty.

 

[Pogo]

The question stands: why would a constitution suddenly depart from format to take a side trip to "explain" something? Why would any Amendment "announce a purpose"? Why would this Amendment --- ALL ALONE IN THE ENTIRE TEXT -- take this departure?

That question has yet to meet an answer. I submit that that's because no answer exists. And that nonpresence leaves the language of the Amendment --- ambiguous.

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

So, buy more guns and ammo??

uh.... what?

That exchange had nothing to do with either guns or ammo. It was about how English works.

 

[Rustic]

It's been explained to you over and over again...but apparently nothing can penetrate your shield of ignorance. Oh well, we live in a country where you are free to be mentally challenged...as long as your actions don't infringe upon my life, liberty or property. Enjoy your apparent bliss.

Actually it's been ignored over and over again, and this thread is hardly the first time. I've lost count long ago but every time one of y'all fails to come up with an answer here, it just re-confirms my point that there IS NO answer, and y'all just can't bring yourselves to admit you had it wrong.

Chalk up yet one more failure to address the question. Carry on.

Given that "failure to address the question" simply means "you didn't say what I want to hear", I'll be happy to chalk up yet another surrender on your part, and win on mine.

By all means, keep showing everyone what an echo-chamber, talking-point dimwit you are. The more you talk, the better everyone else looks.

Big hand for Danth

Pick up her new version of Abba's tune "Danthing Queen" on Lisp records. Wherever fine bullshit is sold.

So, buy more guns and ammo??

uh.... what?

That exchange had nothing to do with either guns or ammo. It was about how English works.

Buying more guns and ammo helps everything, especially cutting down on the gun violence in the country.

Not that it's all that big of an issue...

 

[candycorn]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering? Keep bringing the comedy. The word "militia" is there for a reason.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power.

"All of the sudden"? Cupcake, the fact that the people possess ultimate power was the revolutionary idea that validated the creation of the United States of America.

That statement makes no sense.

The Constitution explicitly asserts that the Federal Government derives its power FROM the People. The People are the only source of all the government's power.

OF COURSE the framers were all for people having ultimate power... it's what the whole revolution was about!

You're speaking of the Articles of Confederation. If you happen to accidentally crack open a history book at some time, you'll see that the Constitution was framed well after the failure of the AoC.

Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I).

Utter nonsense!

The electoral college was not created to disenfranchise the People; amongst other reasons involving "intrigues", it was created because it was not feasible to properly inform the whole body of sovereigns so that they could all competently exercise their franchise in a timely manner. It was more practical to designate qualified electoral delegates from each state to perform the duty.

Thanks for proving my point; "qualified electoral delegates" = not the direct election by the people.

Thanks for playing. Check please.

 

[Rustic]

Clearly, if this were the case, they would have said so, when they had the opportunity.


But instead, they said, "well-regulated"; you know, as in properly functioning; as in being armed in accordance with the requirements of soldiering in military service.

Having weapons is the only requirement for soldiering? Keep bringing the comedy. The word "militia" is there for a reason.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power.

"All of the sudden"? Cupcake, the fact that the people possess ultimate power was the revolutionary idea that validated the creation of the United States of America.

That statement makes no sense.

The Constitution explicitly asserts that the Federal Government derives its power FROM the People. The People are the only source of all the government's power.

OF COURSE the framers were all for people having ultimate power... it's what the whole revolution was about!

You're speaking of the Articles of Confederation. If you happen to accidentally crack open a history book at some time, you'll see that the Constitution was framed well after the failure of the AoC.

Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I).

Utter nonsense!

The electoral college was not created to disenfranchise the People; amongst other reasons involving "intrigues", it was created because it was not feasible to properly inform the whole body of sovereigns so that they could all competently exercise their franchise in a timely manner. It was more practical to designate qualified electoral delegates from each state to perform the duty.

Thanks for proving my point; "qualified electoral delegates" = not the direct election by the people.

Thanks for playing. Check please.

If it was just a popular vote = mob rule

 

[Rustic]

Milita has a different meaning now than then...

Just a fact...