Re: Emergency -- 38 years

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 03, 2013 11:57 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i wish they'd take away this guy's right to bare arms:

Il Professore, are you biased against fat/obese people?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:02 pm

just the ones who are attached to the end of a gun.

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:03 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:just the ones who are attached to the end of a gun.

Other fat people are OK for you?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:05 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:just the ones who are attached to the end of a gun.

Other fat people are OK for you?

OK?

let me ask you a question -- do you think the guy in the picture is part of a ("snicker") well-regulated, ahem, militia?

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:06 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:just the ones who are attached to the end of a gun.

Other fat people are OK for you?

OK?

let me ask you a question -- do you think the guy in the picture is part of a ("snicker") well-regulated, ahem, militia?

I wouldn't cross him or snicker at him in front of him, if I were you.

Is this A-OK for you?:

http://www.heavy.com/action/girls/2011/03/the-20-hottest-girls-with-guns/

by Propagandhi711 Wed Jul 03, 2013 12:38 pm

note to self: only good looking people that vote blue, talk in approved languages and have high falutin tastes deserve constitutionally guaranteed rights. professor told me so

by Idéfix Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:00 pm

The constitutional guarantee is to not infringe on the right to bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. Unless Max has called for a complete ban on civilian gun ownership, his views don't violate that constitutional guarantee. Even a hypothetical system where the government allows you to buy a gun only after you pass a test to demonstrate competence in the safe operation of that weapon would be a "well-regulated" system in keeping with that constitutional right.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:01 pm

yes, the gun nuts always focus on the right to bear arms as if the rest of the words in the 2nd don't have any meaning.

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:10 pm

That is your Liberal interpretation of "A well-regulated militia" so you can bring in more Government control. I guess you are glad for the backup, Il Professore.

All it says that free States need to have a regulated Militia for their own security. Citizens have the right bear arms so they can participate in the State militias.

by Idéfix Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:07 pm

Hellsangel wrote:That is your Liberal interpretation of "A well-regulated militia" so you can bring in more Government control. I guess you are glad for the backup, Il Professore.

All it says that free States need to have a regulated Militia for their own security. Citizens have the right bear arms so they can participate in the State militias.

I didn't write the Second Amendment, nor did you. So by definition, we both have to interpret it. I can easily call your interpretation a Gun Nut interpretation and leave it at that, but those labels don't get us very far. Here is the text of the amendment. It is part of what is called the Bill of Rights.

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 interpret that in your previous post as two separate statements that don't have very much to do with each other: only the second of those is a statement of a right, and the first, in your interpretation, is a statement about one of the needs of a state not the rights of citizens. If the framers intended that meaning, they need not have placed the first statement at all in what they called the Bill of Rights -- because it is not a statement of one of the rights of citizens.

Besides, the amendment was NOT written as two separate statements. The right of the people arises from the free state's need for security. They chose the word "being" instead of, say, "and" to come up with this alternative:

A well regulated militia ~~being~~ is necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So all said, I believe my interpretation is more defensible than yours.

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:28 pm

Idéfix wrote:
So all said, I believe my interpretation is more defensible than yours.

Sure. You are free to believe as you see fit, of course.

by Sponsored content