Gov. Bill Lee to proclaim Oct. 10 day of prayer & fasting

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, TGO David said:

If the founding fathers meant anything other than what they wrote, they'd have written something other than what they did.  Words mean things.  Simple language is meant to be interpreted simply.  All attempts to draw hidden meanings or implications from the Constitution or the Amendments are scams.

That's bad news if you apply it to the 2nd.

[Chucktshoes]

46 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

That's bad news if you apply it to the 2nd.

No, it isn’t. The language of the second is pretty clear and all forms of gun control are an infringement. Only through heavy mental gymnastics have any of them been justified. 

[gregintenn]

49 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

That's bad news if you apply it to the 2nd.

I dunno. “Shall not be infringed” seems pretty damned clear to me.

[DaveTN]

31 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

No, it isn’t. The language of the second is pretty clear and all forms of gun control are an infringement. Only through heavy mental gymnastics have any of them been justified. 

 

29 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I dunno. “Shall not be infringed” seems pretty damned clear to me.

It’s clear to you because you both know what you want it to mean. We all know the arguments that are made both ways.

Help me out here, because my thing in school was math, not punctuation or writing.

"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."

Does the comma after Militia not mean the statements that follow it support the statements before it?

And don’t you think that if the founding Fathers meant that the 2nd was there so the people could arm themselves to overthrow their own oppressive government; they would have addressed that?

Unless their intent was to protect a Militia made up of citizens and guarantee their right to keep and bear arms; their intent is not clear at all. And saying it is doesn’t make it so.

 

[Chucktshoes]

16 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

 

It’s clear to you because you both know what you want it to mean. We all know the arguments that are made both ways.

Help me out here, because my thing in school was math, not punctuation or writing.

"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."

Does the comma after Militia not mean the statements that follow it support the statements before it?

And don’t you think that if the founding Fathers meant that the 2nd was there so the people could arm themselves to overthrow their own oppressive government; they would have addressed that?

Unless their intent was to protect a Militia made up of citizens and guarantee their right to keep and bear arms; their intent is not clear at all. And saying it is doesn’t make it so.

 

The first clause is the dependant clause, not the second. 

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” is not a complete sentence and cannot stand on its own as it doesn’t convey a complete thought.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” is a complete sentence that does convey a complete thought and can stand on its own grammatically. 

There is plenty of documentation from the Founding Fathers at the time regarding who and what the milita were according to them. Probably the one I like the best is from George Mason while he was arguing for changes to the Constitution that would eventually result in the Second Amendment. 

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table [the Constitution] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.”

George Mason

 

A bit of a detour into the arguments that can be made both ways admittedly with the Mason quote. To reiterate and return back to topic, your grammatical reading is reversed from correct order. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

7 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

The first clause is the dependant clause, not the second. 

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” is not a complete sentence and cannot stand on its own as it doesn’t convey a complete thought.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” is a complete sentence that does convey a complete thought and can stand on its own grammatically. 

There is plenty of documentation from the Founding Fathers at the time regarding who and what the milita were according to them. Probably the one I like the best is from George Mason while he was arguing for changes to the Constitution that would eventually result in the Second Amendment. 

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table [the Constitution] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.”

George Mason

Okay, I don’t think “Reasonable Restrictions” comply with “shall not be infringed”; yet here we are??

[Chucktshoes]

1 minute ago, DaveTN said:

Okay, I don’t think “Reasonable Restrictions” comply with “shall not be infringed”; yet here we are??

Pretty much. 

[DaveTN]

4 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Pretty much. 

Okay, So what happens when the SCOTUS rules that any American anywhere can strap on a gun and walk down the street….and states refuse?? Tennessee would probably be one of those states.

[Chucktshoes]

3 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Okay, So what happens when the SCOTUS rules that any American anywhere can strap on a gun and walk down the street….and states refuse?? Tennessee would probably be one of those states.

I don’t know, and I don’t agree with your prediction on what TN would do so I can’t really give you any sort of answer on that one. 

[gregintenn]

3 hours ago, DaveTN said:

 

It’s clear to you because you both know what you want it to mean. We all know the arguments that are made both ways.

Help me out here, because my thing in school was math, not punctuation or writing.

"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."

Does the comma after Militia not mean the statements that follow it support the statements before it?

And don’t you think that if the founding Fathers meant that the 2nd was there so the people could arm themselves to overthrow their own oppressive government; they would have addressed that?

Unless their intent was to protect a Militia made up of citizens and guarantee their right to keep and bear arms; their intent is not clear at all. And saying it is doesn’t make it so.

 

Dave, I am by no means an English scholar. I read it as the first part stating why the second amendment is necessary. The second part, which stands on it’s on, declares the right to keep and bear arms an unrestricted right of  “THE PEOPLE”.

I am among “THE PEOPLE”. I think you are as well.

[4Freedom]

I think one of the Founding Fathers who was a key player in ratification of the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, summarized the reasoning of the 2nd Amendment with his own logical statements.  Of course, the fascists Constitutional Reconstructists (like most new aged liberals and RINOs today) would argue Thomas Jefferson must have been tripping on some funky stuff that day and never really meant it.. Liberal Logic.. Right!!

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

Well, if people are only allowed to have muskets or bolt action hunting rifles, and the government is allowed to own all the small arms and artillery they desire, that would make Thomas Jefferson's arguments completely invalid.   These are just one of many statements our Founding Fathers have given defending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the citizenry.

Basically, our modern day National Socialist type of politicians like many Democrats, even many Republicans (such as those who support EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS to circumvent that "annoying" 2nd Amendment) are pretty much finding any means possible to debunk and manipulate the true sentiments of the authors of the Amendment and the true meaning of our Constitutional Laws.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

 

They say owning AR-15s causes mass-shootings?  Yet, my relatives in Belarus were not allowed to own any type of firearm and were the victims of mass shootings many times greater than any in this country by the hands of the Russian, Polish and German governments!  So, I think Thomas Jefferson made another very bold and wise statement here

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by 4Freedom

[gregintenn]

If anyone was harmed in any way by this proclamation, please share it with us.

[Chucktshoes]

36 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

If anyone was harmed in any way by this proclamation, please share it with us.

I had to read a bunch of posts from folks cranky about the subject on both sides in this thread making sure everyone behaved.

[RED333]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

I had to read a bunch of posts from folks cranky about the subject on both sides in this thread making sure everyone behaved.

and I thank you, Mods do a tuff job, thanks again.

[Chucktshoes]

5 minutes ago, RED333 said:

and I thank you, Mods do a tuff job, thanks again.

I was just trying to crack a joke, I wasn’t fishing for compliments.
 

Seriously though, thank you. It’s an honor to be able to serve this community that has given me so much for over a decade. 

[gregintenn]

41 minutes ago, RED333 said:

and I thank you, Mods do a tuff job, thanks again.

That’s what it takes to keep it a site worth visiting. They do a great job with little recognition.

[TGO David]

Oh, you know... the Staff likes to argue as much as everyone else does. 

 

[Chucktshoes]

26 minutes ago, TGO David said:

Oh, you know... the Staff likes to argue as much as everyone else does. 

 

[gregintenn]

6 hours ago, TGO David said:

Oh, you know... the Staff likes to argue as much as everyone else does. 

 

They’ve earned the right. They keep this place orderly.