Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Page 2 of 6 [ 87 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 340
Location: The Eastern Outskirts of the Daley Empire

27 Feb 2009, 9:21 pm

Macbeth... please pay attention to 18th century grammar.

The link I gave to the Penn and Teller episode more than adequately describes the correct gramatical parsing.

_________________
Malum Prohibitum, Malum Habenae Regum Est.
I'm not Jesus. Stop punishing me for other people's sins.

True Liberty Expressed as Fiction: http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

27 Feb 2009, 10:28 pm

Macbeth wrote:

And all this despite the fact it quite clearly in big letters says "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"? Only by re-writing every word in that sentence, perhaps..

but then see my earlier comments regarding "amending" self-evident truths....

Obviously, you're an expert in grammar, starting a sentence with a preposition. However, Wikipedia has an answer for you!

Wikipedia wrote:

Two grammatical descriptions of the Second Amendment have been historically discussed.

In one description, known to grammarians as an ablative absolute, the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification clause, followed by a declarative clause.[12][13] Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[14] This was a grammar structure that was common during that era.[15] This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.[16]

Another description of the Second Amendment has it being grammatically formed with an opening "prefatory clause" followed by an "operative clause", meaning that the opening phrase is meant as a non-exclusive reason for the amendment. This description is consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to firearms.[17] In Heller, the Supreme Court chose and endorsed this description of the Second Amendment.[18] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment that has a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_amendment

The first is your supposition, it is proven incorrect by the statements of the framers and the decisions of the courts I quoted above, the second is the correct interpretation.

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Feb 2009, 10:58 pm

philosopherBoi wrote:

Sorry but I see nothing wrong with bans and regulations on extremely dangerous weapons, and ammunition.

All guns are inherently "dangerous", what is so ridiculous about this whole thing is that so called "assault weapons" are used in such a tiny percentage of crimes that attempting to ban them is extremely counter-productive. We aren't talking about machine guns here, those have been effectively illegal since 1934, we are talking about semi-automatic rifles and pistols, guns that are used by target shooters, hunters, the police and for self defense. We gun people see it as a slippery slope issue, by attempting to demonize one type of gun and rally public support for banning it, the public grows more comfortable with further restrictions and regulations in a self sustaining cycle until a situation like that in England is reached. Because I'm not willing to live with that situation, I will now be devoting as much time and energy as I can spare to un-elect anyone who has anything to do with this travesty, if I have to compromise on some of my other progressive beliefs, so be it. That's why people like you should care, PB, because people like me are the swing voters that politicians spend so much time and energy courting because we decide the elections. If the Obama administration persists in trying to revive this useless piece of legislation, it will be Newt Gingrich in '94 all over again, and then where will your rights be?

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Feb 2009, 11:06 pm

Macbeth wrote:

And all this despite the fact it quite clearly in big letters says "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"?

The important phrase in the 2nd Amendment is "the right of the People". No where else in the Constitution where that phrase is used does it mean only people engaged in some kind of activity or organization, it means just what it says, "the PEOPLE". The well regulated militia part is only explaining the why of the matter, it is not setting any sort of condition.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

27 Feb 2009, 11:47 pm

Macbeth wrote:

but then see my earlier comments regarding "amending" self-evident truths....

I was actually leaving this for VeloDog to answer, since you quoted him (her?) but if this is open for anyone to rip apart your logic, I'll bite.

Macbeth wrote:

Two: I have little or no faith in a document held to be self evident,

If you're going to trash the founding documents, at least try keep them straight, so you don't sound like an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... dependence

Macbeth wrote:

but butchered so continuously, and adapted and re-written so continuously over a mere 200 years.

Err...What? It's hardly been "butchered" though few of the changes have been positive, all of them have been fairly minor.

Macbeth wrote:

And the decision that it regards the individual does not invalidate the obvious desire to have some stops or controls over these arms bearers.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

Macbeth wrote:

Three: Regulated. You do know what regulated means don't you? IE NOT the freedom to carry whatever you like regardless of who you are. Individual or group, the document is quite clearly stating their should be some form of control in place.

Wrong, see my above post (and Dox's...and MM's).

Macbeth wrote:

Four: Yes, its still a fail because you completely failed to read what I wrote properly.

Maybe if what you wrote actually made sense...

Macbeth wrote:

Five: Bit snappy aren't we? Bit temperish? I like my gun owners to be calm, well-balanced people.

Bit rude aren't we? Also, if speculating on someones mentality is now fair game... Hmm, antisocial, obvious emotional issues... Oh God, THIS MAN IS A PSYCHOPATH!! ! He's a danger to himself, and everyone around him!! ! HE NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP!! !

Macbeth wrote:

Five: That's not even a weapon relevant to the ban in the topic/op. Ergo who cares if you have it or not?

Probably posted it because we needed a break from your nonsense. My goodness, that is a pretty gun.

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

28 Feb 2009, 9:25 am

A fervent desire to translate that document to read however you see fit is becoming ever more obvious.

OF COURSE the founding fathers wanted unregulated gun use so that any man with a grudge could cause havoc a will. Yes, that fits perfectly into the framework of providing fair and just government.... how could I not see it? And of course, when the choice of firearm is: pistol or musket... firearm regulations are fairly vague. Who cares if the farmers have rifles? Its their right.

People seem happy to update the documents to fit their own viewpoints, but seem very adept at avoiding the other direction... updating the IDEA behind the documents to fit modern technologies. When the next largest firearm available is ARTILLERY, firearms regulation is pointless. Who buys a cannon? Who knows how to operate one? But when a private individual can acquire weapons that actually outgun the average infantry platoon, then mayhaps you should be studying the desires behind the document, instead of the grammatical inconsistencies of earlier eras.

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

velodog
Gold Supporter

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,374

28 Feb 2009, 10:17 am

Macbeth wrote:

One: I was referring to the misquote itself. It clearly states WELL REGULATED in the sentence quoted, but it was misquoted as WELL ARMED. The two are clearly different. The two words mean completely different things.

Two: I have little or no faith in a document held to be self evident, but butchered so continuously, and adapted and re-written so continuously over a mere 200 years. And the decision that it regards the individual does not invalidate the obvious desire to have some stops or controls over these arms bearers.

Three: Regulated. You do know what regulated means don't you? IE NOT the freedom to carry whatever you like regardless of who you are. Individual or group, the document is quite clearly stating their should be some form of control in place.

Four: Yes, its still a fail because you completely failed to read what I wrote properly.

Five: Bit snappy aren't we? Bit temperish? I like my gun owners to be calm, well-balanced people.

Five: That's not even a weapon relevant to the ban in the topic/op. Ergo who cares if you have it or not?

1) I quoted what you wrote, and I replied to what you wrote.
2) Apparently you have no respect for the Constitution anyway ( unless you actually intended to somehow misconstrue the "truths to be self evident" portion of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as part of the Constitution ) so, why should I concern myself with your arguments about the 2nd Amendment when your "little or no faith" statement leads me to believe that you don't care for the Constitution as a whole?
3) See point 2).
4) See point 2).
5) See point 2) for why I don't care what you like. In my country it takes more than Macbeth's opinion to take away a persons right to bear arms. I posted the picture because I felt like it, and because I believed that someone like T-rav20 would appreciate it.
Edit: thanks T-rav20, I like it too. Now I'm going to the gun show at the Cow Palace to buy a bunch of ammo.

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

28 Feb 2009, 11:52 am

Macbeth wrote:

Your lack of basic reading comprehension skills is becoming ever more obvious.

Yes, the entire point of the second amendment is that people have ready access to military style firearms. Why, you ask? To keep the government from just doing whatever it pleased without the consent of the governed, just like before the revolutionary war. Oh, and you fail again, as much of the cannon used during the war was bought privately before being turned over to the continental army. So, yes, you could buy artillery.

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

28 Feb 2009, 12:06 pm

Macbeth wrote:

Two: I have little or no faith in a document held to be self evident, but butchered so continuously, and adapted and re-written so continuously over a mere 200 years.

Macbeth wrote:

People seem happy to update the documents to fit their own viewpoints, but seem very adept at avoiding the other direction... updating the IDEA behind the documents to fit modern technologies. ...then mayhaps you should be studying the desires behind the document, instead of the grammatical inconsistencies of earlier eras.

So, you have no faith in such a document...until it's altered in a way you find appropriate, of course.

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

28 Feb 2009, 2:11 pm

T-rav20 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Because the average farmer is entirely capable of laying a gun, understands how to operate it, has access to the vast amounts of powder and shot needed to field even a small artillery piece. MM okidoky. I can right now purchase a self-propelled artillery piece and have it here by Wednesday. Doesn't mean I'm capable of any of the above, mechanically or logistically. Perhaps you should re-read my post with your superior grasp of grammar. I never said you COULDN'T buy cannons. I queried who would, and who would know how to work it.

And your government already does pretty much what it pleases. Whole nations with fully equipped armies cant stop it. It takes somewhere the size of China or the USSR to stop it. You can buy as many AKs as you like, and it will do you no good at all.

And it still isn'tt giving you the right to buy guns just because you like them, or think they are pretty, or because you think you should have them. Its giving you the right to buy guns for a very specific reason. See if you can work out what that reason is...

_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

28 Feb 2009, 4:21 pm

Macbeth wrote:

You talk about the "average farmer" a great deal, and no matter how many times you repeat that crap, you wont be any less wrong. The "average farming community" could and did band together to buy cannon and train in its use. During the revolutionary war (for obvious reasons), and before as well. When you're surrounded by occasionally hostile natives and have unreliable (at best) allies, sometimes you need a big damn gun.

Macbeth wrote:

And your government already does pretty much what it pleases. Whole nations with fully equipped armies cant stop it. It takes somewhere the size of China or the USSR to stop it. You can buy as many AKs as you like, and it will do you no good at all.

Nope, wrong. While the government does considerably more than I (and many others) would care for, It still can't do, "Whatever it pleases", not by a long shot.

Macbeth wrote:

And it still isn'tt giving you the right to buy guns just because you like them, or think they are pretty, or because you think you should have them. Its giving you the right to buy guns for a very specific reason. See if you can work out what that reason is...

Nope, wrong. If you examine the colloquia, the framers were VERY clear on the meaning of the amendments. They doesn't constrain the people, they constrain the government. They mean NO, NOT YOURS, DON'T TOUCH, which is what I've been saying, again and again and again. I really don't know how I can say it any clearer.

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

Last edited by T-rav20 on 28 Feb 2009, 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Feb 2009, 5:40 pm

The discussion here is about the possibility of re-instating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban in the UNITED STATES.

Read it again.

It has to do with the constitution and the conflicting laws of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
Having established that, if your not an American it's really none of your business.
:evil:

Xelebes
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

28 Feb 2009, 6:13 pm

T-rav20 wrote:

Obviously, you're an expert in grammar, starting a sentence with a preposition.

Prepositions may start subordinate clauses but never start principal clauses. If the subordinate clause is not completed with a principal clause, it is not a complete sentence. A question may comprise of only a sub-ordinate clause because it is not a statement. It is an inquiry, an incomplete thought.

_________________
Diagnosis: Asperger's, Tourette's

http://xelebes.wordpress.com/
My Blog

T-rav20
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,848
Location: South Jersey

28 Feb 2009, 6:32 pm

Xelebes wrote:

T-rav20 wrote:

Obviously, you're an expert in grammar, starting a sentence with a preposition.

Pardon me.
Allow me to re-direct my criticism.

T-rav20 wrote:

Obviously, you're an expert in grammar, starting a thought with a sentence fragment

Better?

_________________
Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

The following statement is True, the preceding statement was False.

I'm A PINEY from my head down to my HINEY.

Fluffybunnyfeet
Raven
Raven

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 113
Location: New Zealand

28 Feb 2009, 6:37 pm

Raptor wrote:

Its not as though americans are a separate sub-species of the human race. Its a human topic, and while the law isn't necessarily any other country's direct business, the effects and the culture ARE. With a gun- and military-happy culture like USA's, taking away the right to play with guns would be a wonderful thing. It might stop the wars.

Philiosophically, those who want guns in america are those who believe that problems can be solved with a gun, a notion that is prevalent in that culture. Count how many of the thousands of movies produced there contain a gun.

As to the pertinence of this specific law, it is founded on the notion that most crazy people with guns, the disgruntled type, do not have the patience to build up the skill needed to become proficient with single action weapons.

Woodpecker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,625
Location: Europe

28 Feb 2009, 6:38 pm

Raptor wrote:

That is not a reasonable idea, the rest of the world has to live in the same world as the americans. I am not totally anti gun but I am in favour of banning the private ownership of a few types of firearm. Also some forms of amo seem unreasonable for the private citizen to have, such as 50 cal DU rounds and exploding bullets.

I hold the view that very few private persons can ever find a legal and reasonable use for something such as a 30 mm cannon or a 50 cal machine gun. Also sawn off shotguns are only likely to be useful to bank robbers, I would like to hear from anyone who can think of a legal and reasonable use for a sawn off 12 gauge shotgun.

_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity :alien:

I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.

Page 2 of 6 [ 87 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban Post Reply New Topic

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban