Again, I think you need to spend some time reading te dick act yourself and looking into state defense forces. On Jan 10, 2013 5:41 PM, "Eric Roberts" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It was also written at a time when people brought their hunting > rifles...which were similar to the standard military rifle of the day, when > their militia unit was called into service. The act of the British > confiscating arms was to prevent people from forming militias to fight > against them. > > In the early 1900's, the government realized that the militia system could > not properly defend effectively, so it was replaced with the National Guard > system via the 1903 Militia Act. > > -----Original Message----- > From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:19 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control > > > I would say it means that in order to have a well regulated militia (aka > laws about the militia and it's use are constitutional) you need an armed > population, and therefore the right of the individual to own and carry arms > shall be in no way limited. > > While the first section is indeed dependent on the second, the reverse is > not true. > > Does that make sense? > On Jan 10, 2013 4:11 PM, "GMoney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is a multiclause sentence, as you know. Brokwn into two related > > > but > > not > > > dependent sections. > > > > > > > I'm a little confused by this. How could the phrases not be dependent > > when one begins with the word "being" ? > > > > I mean...."being" at the beginning of a clause requires dependency: > > > > "My house, being too small, needs to be expanded." > > > > The house needs to be expanded, BECAUSE it's too small. > > > > The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE > > a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. > > > > If for whatever reason a well regulated militia were NOT necessary for > > a free state (or if your house was NOT too small), the right to bear > > arms could be infringed (the house would not have to be enlarged). > > > > How do you see the two as not being dependent, when one references the > > other via the word "being"?? > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:360003 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
