Nice! Haha On Jan 10, 2013 9:51 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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:360018 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
