Online users
???: Message   

Samuel Ricolla has something to say. So do I, Sam.
Re: Hmnph. Which side of the 'debate' does this guy advocate? [eyecross] -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE

05/03/2019, 21:04:02

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Samuel Ricolla
You'll notice that many of the pro-gun arguments refuse to recognize the "well regulated militia" wording in the second amendment.

And although I have mixed opinions about Scalia's ruling, the fact that even he recognized there are limits to gun ownership is very telling.

We now see signs of the NRA imploding for a lack of real leadership. One can only hope this results in a common sense approach to gun ownership.

There are articles almost daily about gun violence in Albuquerque. In my opinion, much of it could be curbed if there were fewer loopholes for gun purchases and more emphasis on training and safe storage of weapons.
Barry Hirsh
That's because grammatically, the term "well-regulated" modifies the noun "militia" and not the noun "right", nor the noun, "people." They aren't even in the same clause.

The prefatory clause merely announces the reason the guarantee is being enumerated. It does not create the right, which is presumed to exist by the construction of the sentence. Neither does it diminish nor expand it.

English Grammar and Usage 101.

The operative clause is a sentence of its own, unlike the prefatory clause which needs the operative clause to give it relevance.

Your argument has been rendered moot over and over and over again, with the same irrefutable rationale.

Apparently, you don't listen very well.


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Modified by TEEBONE at Fri, May 03, 2019, 23:00:31

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message