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

To: William Tell
"Perhaps it would help if you could explain how my asking you to justify your understanding of the Second Amendment, which seems to match that of DC, is not on topic."

Re-wording the second amendment to books is off-topic. That's what I meant.

335 posted on 11/23/2007 4:53:56 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "Re-wording the second amendment to books is off-topic. That's what I meant."

Then you are absolutely wrong. Your mis-interpretation of the Second Amendment depends completely on the inclusion and wording of the militia clause. Here's a one question SAT test for you:

Which two of the following four sentences are most alike:

A) 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.

B) Because, among other possible reasons, a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

C) Only because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when members of such Militia shall not be infringed.

D) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I suggest that you find somebody whose skill in grammar you respect to take this test with you. Let us know the results.

346 posted on 11/23/2007 12:39:25 PM PST by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | 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