4 votes

Churchill's law -“Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”

I am afraid we must all break Churchill's law with compassion to engage the indoctrinated or suffer with them...

Below is an exchange with a Huffington Post reader in response to his comment on my post on the story;
Rand Paul To Challenge Obama's Gun Control Executive Actions
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/rand-paul-obama-gun...

Feel free to share use or reuse this as you will in your 2nd Amendment discussions with others.
Cheers DP Happy B-Day!

My post on the Story:
"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."

The second amendment quoted above is powerful and clear.

Regardless of your personal feelings on this subject, we all must decide if we want to live under the rule of law or the rule of men.

The United States Constitution is difficult to amend, most agree purposefully. As spelled out in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways.

First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures (ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date.

Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy.

This is the law of the land.

Efforts to circumvent the US Constitution without following this process are in violation of the oath of office of each participant and could be construed as an act of treason by a reasonable jury.”

Reply comment from Huff Reader:
05:08 AM on 01/17/2013
"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 people keep bringing that up, but fail to understand that the right to bear arms meant muskets...i repeat...MUSKETS...the weapon of the era. And as to "a well regulated militia", there's no such thing in this day and age...it's been replaced by the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment in that regard, is obsolete and antiquated, just like the weapons they were referring to...MUSKETS.

My Reply:
Thank you for your reply XXXXX and if you have a moment I would like to ask you to read a bit more with me and tell me if your opinion may have room for thought. Thank you again.

With that I must point out that your statement above about muskets is fundamentally flawed.
Your rights of free speech are not limited to what one can write in quill and ink. Your protected speech rights extend though radio, tv, and internet and as such a right to bear arms are not diminished by changing technology.

Your comment about the sentence structure is also not supported in language or in law to date.
The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
*Please see exchange Schluman to Copperud from provided source below.

Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"--for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?

Copperud:
(1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

For more on how to read and defend the etymology, grammatical structure and meaning of the 2nd amendment see;
PRIVATE ARMS AS THE PALLADIUM OF LIBERTY: THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT - Ronald S. Resnick
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Resnick1.htm

Also see:
A 2nd Amendment argument you can use with anyone!
http://www.dailypaul.com/270702/a-2nd-amendment-argument-you...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well done.

!

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

About the "MUSKETS" comments

It is my understanding (if I'm wrong let me know) that the Red Coats were using smooth bore muskets. Many of the rebels were using rifled muskets, giving improved accuracy and more range. Meaning, to me, that the rebels were better armed than the regular troops.
Therefore, from the comments by those in the anti-gun crowd, the people should be better armed than the military!
Which sounds fine to me!

Ah and isn't nice to remember

Ah and isn't nice to remember that still in America the people are the military. We must not let them separate us.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Right you are!

Sorry about that, I should have said better armed than the 'government troops'
:-)

A very good

analysis of the second amendment. Now, let's take on the interstate commerce clause!

Perfect

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

This is pure gold! Thank you for posting this!

With Freedom Comes Responsibility