And you see absolutely no way for a reasonable person to read that differently?
_That_ is about as close-minded an attitude as I have seen in a long time, even with all this election junk going on. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know it wasn't but what I wrote says the same thing. The first clause is > junk, and it's a personal right. Heller found this, you are wrong. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:49 PM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: questions from the gun control thread > > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have never understood how people can say the amendment > > isn't clearly > > > written. > > > > > > No laws shall be established regarding the peoples ability > > to keep and > > > bear arms. > > > > > > That's it the end. Read the founders, it's what they meant. Any > > > other opinion is lying to yourself. > > > > That is not the text of the 2nd Amendment. Here is the text of the 2nd > > Amendment: > > > > "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 were actually using language from the 1st Amendment the > > "no law shall.." bit. > > > > Here's the text of the 1st Amendment: > > > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or > > abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the > > right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition > > the government for a redress of grievances. > > " > > > > I know you think the 2nd Amendment is very clear, but its > > beginning clause leaves it far from crystal. Notice that the > > 1st Amendment doesn't say *why* its being adopted. It doesn't > > say "Because we don't want a national church, congress shall > > make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The 1st > > amendment doesn't have any equivocation. > > > > the 2nd Amendment though says that there is a right of the > > people to keep and bear arms, but says that it is so because > > of the need for a well regulated militia. Are you part of a > > well regulated militia? Am I? Are the owners of most of the > > guns in America part of a well regulated militia? There are > > arguments on both sides, without a doubt, but the text of > > that amendment is nowhere near as clear and unequivocating as > > the first. You may want it to be totally clear and obvious > > but that does not make it so, sadly. I wish it was more > > clear, but it is what it is. > > > > Judah > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280039 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
