4f84bb9b   
   XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "bringyagrogalong"  wrote in message   
   news:d44a9551-1b40-4b1e-b127-d1baed9650da@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...   
   > Klaus Schadenfreude  wrote:   
   >> bringyagrogalong  wrote:   
   >> > Klaus Schadenfreude  wrote:   
   >> >> bringyagrogalong  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> > I agree that guns are a tool. The problem is with tools who have   
   >> >> > access to them.   
   >>   
   >> >> > The Second Amendment appreciated that fact, so limited the right to   
   >> >> > bear arms to an organised militia not individuals.   
   >>   
   >> >> It didn't.   
   >>   
   >> > It did.   
   >>   
   >> It didn't. Otherwise, it would have said " the right of the militia to   
   >> keep and bear arms."   
   >   
   > It's clear to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of the Queen's   
   > English, which unfortunately leaves you out, that the right to bear   
   > arms was in the context of having an armed militia.   
      
   Ok, then you can show us this grammatical link that you claim exists between   
   the right being protected and the "organized militia" and that the right   
   exists ONLY for the "organized militia".   
      
   >   
   > Otherwise it would simply have said: "The right of the people to keep   
   > and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".   
      
   Which is what the main clause says, and the subordinate clause has NO   
   grammatical connection to the main clause thus can not alter, change or   
   modify the main clause in any manner.   
      
   See "nominative absolute".   
      
   The right is that of THE PEOPLE....not just those in an organized militia.   
      
   For someone that claims to be able to read....you sure have trouble with   
   even a single sentence.   
      
      
   >> > Which I guess is why you snipped it?   
   >>   
   >> I snipped it because you're obviously too fucking stupid to read it   
   >> and understand it, so why bother leaving it?   
   >   
   > Rubbish! You snipped it because you were confused.   
   >   
   > Here, let me reinstate it for you:   
   >   
   > "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".   
   >   
   > Now go and find a big person to explain it to you.   
   >   
   >> >> Try reading it.   
   >>   
   >> > I did.   
   >>   
   >> But you don't understand it.   
   >   
   > It's clear that it's you who doesn't understand it.   
   >   
   >> > It clearly stated that the right to bear arms was in the context of   
   >> > having an armed militia.   
   >>   
   >> Wrong.   
   >   
   > Right.   
   >   
   >> See above.   
   >   
   > I did, and you have absolutely no idea.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)