Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Zakeet

“even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” “

Liberals thinks that because we don’t have militias anymore, that removes the reasoning behind the right for individuals to bear arms.

They’re stuck on the syntax and willfully ignore the important aspects of gun ownership...the right of the people to not be subjugated by forces foreign or domestic.


5 posted on 06/27/2008 5:15:17 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Slapshot68
One definition of a militia: "A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government."

Maybe Conservatives should form a bunch of these private forces and start roaming around -- THEN we could carry guns, right??

The NYT should die of fright if there were militias today.

15 posted on 06/27/2008 5:18:57 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Et si omnes ego non)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Slapshot68
“even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” “

Well, bedwetter, the High Priesthood of Secular Humanism has declared this statement to be false. Spin on it.

19 posted on 06/27/2008 5:22:15 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Slapshot68

Ah, but they WANT to subjugate the people by forces domestic... it’s in every policy they propose. This is why they inherently oppose the individual having the right to defend himself.


20 posted on 06/27/2008 5:23:40 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Slapshot68

But they are wrong, even from a grammatical/syntax stand-point.

In the 2nd Amendment, the “militia” statement is part of a DEPENDENT clause. It is, therefore, not capable of standing on its own as a sentence.

The “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” statement is contained within an INDEPENDENT clause - that is, it has meaning as a complete sentence, even when standing by itself.

Grammatically speaking, dependent clauses do NOT control the meaning of independent clauses when they appear in they same sentence. They may clarify or enhance the independent clause, but the independent clause controls the overall meaning/intent of the sentence as a whole.

Thus, the right to keep and bear arms is NOT in any way dependent on service in a militia and it never has been.


30 posted on 06/27/2008 5:31:36 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Slapshot68

Individuals bearing arms- could become a “militia” very quickly- right?

Isn’t that what happened in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans before the 82d Airborne arrived to put down the armed looters and punks?


54 posted on 06/27/2008 5:51:43 AM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Slapshot68
Liberals thinks that because we don’t have militias anymore, that removes the reasoning behind the right for individuals to bear arms.

We DO have militias in places where people don't want to depend on the government for protection. People train together with their own firearms and come together as a "militia" if needed.

Militias and armed citizens kept the peace right after Katrina in many places outside New Orleans.

84 posted on 06/27/2008 6:28:27 AM PDT by varyouga ("Rove is some mysterious God of politics & mind control" - DU 10-24-06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Slapshot68

“Liberals thinks that because we don’t have militias anymore...”

We the people are the militia and militia’s can organize rather spontaneously as circustances may dictate. In addition to citizen action post Katrina, one need look no further than the passengers of United flight 93.


101 posted on 06/27/2008 7:19:07 AM PDT by KeyesPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson