hey guys don't be a pair of dicks. d/k running
couldn't help myself. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:360015 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
