If the 2nd had said “A sexually satisfied militia being necessary for the security of a free state,

[jody]

the right of the people to have sexual relations shall not be infringed,” would mean only the National Guard has the right to have sex.

Just another way of looking at the construction of the 2nd Amendment. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

1. There would still be limits to sex

Where and when. Forensics to detect when sex was illegal and who was the perpetrator. Laws to keep sex away from children and sexual predators. We actually have a sexual predator registry, remember? You might not want to compare guns to sex or you might have to admit how stupid the guns with no regulation argument really is.

[jody]

2. Perhaps it is not I who is stupid! n/t

[robert yates]

5. I'll compare guns and sex!

Both are my business and nobody elses, so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.

Both are in the realm of natural rights, not state-sanctioned "priveleges."

Government has no business trying to "regulate" either.

[sandnsea]

7. But government does

And I'm sure if someone raped your wife or daughter, you'd think government has every right to regulate it. Of if people were having sex in the aisles at Sears. Get serious.

[krispos42]

23. But the attitude of the anti-gunners is...

Only people who have been judged mentally sound after a rigorous psychological screening, passed a sriminal and sexual background check, have two forms of ID, and have a legitimate need can be issued a permit to have sex. All semen will be registered with the Federal government, and there will be a statuary limit of one orgasm per month.


In fact, according to some, all sexual organs, particularly "rape-enabling assault penises", would be denied to the general public because, after all, there are other ways to get sexual satisfaction, right? And if you want the end result of sex (a kid) you don't need to have sexual organs! Just call up a fertility clinic! Let somebody else deal with it who has the proper training and equipment!

I mean, think of the children! Do you have ANY IDEA how many INNOCENT CHILDREN are SEXUALLY MOLESTED EVERY DAY IN THIS COUNTRY? I mean, I know banning sexual organs won't stop all of them, but it will HELP!!! And we need Genital-Free Zones around our schools! Don't you agree?

And even if a teacher has been issued a Concealed Genital Permit, they can't bring them on the school campus. There might be an accident or something!

[sandnsea]

24. Sounds like a plan

Actually, some people have proposed automatic DNA sampling, parenting screening, and the like. And I'm sure if genitals could be removed, we would require teachers to leave them at home. Your rant is only funny because of people's inability to separate themselves from their bodies. The need to control the sex act, and guns, is still obvious.

[krispos42]

26. Genitals can be removed.

So it should be done. After all, they pose a clear and present danger to millions of people a year and do not have a compensating non-sexual usefulness, unlike, for example, hands. It's a BAN, as in "goes away and is never seen again".

Lop off the penises, sew shut the vaginas. Sperm can be removed from the scrotum and injected into a woman to produce a baby, which can then be delivered by C-section. Once the appropriate permits are applied for, of course.

Can I sign you up?

[sandnsea]

27. Well no, they really can't be left at home

and reattached at the end of the work day.

[krispos42]

28. I've proven that you don't need them.

They can and should be removed permenately, because, after all, how many children are molested by their parents at home? How many wives are raped by their husbands?

Even in the home, any possible usefulness of sexual organs is far outweighed by the threat of domestic rape and domestic child molestation. The right to indulge in you "hobby" of masturbation or consentual sexual intercourse is not worth hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of rapes and molested children every single year.

THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY CANNOT HANDLE THEIR GENITALIA.

Since technology has given us tools that allow reproduction without male or female genitalia, it is obviously time to do without them. And since, obviously, our civilization will never ever fail and we can alway depend on easy access to fertility treatments, it's just time to cut and sew.

If it prevents one child from being molested, I think it's worth it. Don't you?

[sandnsea]

29. Let's cut out eating while we're at it

Give everybody a vitamin drink and fiber supplement. You're being as extreme about sex as you are about guns. That's why nothing ever gets resolved in this country. You can't have a common sense negotiation without somebody going over the deep end.

[krispos42]

30. No, I'm being as extreme about sex as YOU are about guns.

I take it you're not going to give up your genitals because somebody thinks it will lower the sexual crime rate?

Is this idea unconstitutional? You haven't argued it isn't.

You can't have a common sense negotiation without somebody going over the deep end.

Exactly. Welcome to empathy.

[sandnsea]

31. No, you are over the deep end on both issues

The majority of people are not suggesting we eliminate guns any more than anybody is suggesting we eliminate sex. They're both figments of your imagination.

[krispos42]

32. People can still have sex. We're just talking about what equipment to allow.

They just can't do it with their genitals. But outlawing genitals in no significant way impedes the ability of people to have sexual relations. Plenty of other ways to do it. Men have the prostate, and women have the clitoris, neither of which require molestation-enabling assault penises to stimulate. And the Adam & Eve catalogue has a variety of accessories to help. They just can't do it with those rape-enabling assault genitals, which I'm sure is something that all reasonable people can agree to.








Funny thing, then, that certain anti-gun people are claiming that non-gun-owners are the majority of the population and support stricter gun laws. Other anti-gun people are for an outright ban and total confiscation. Check out any of the high-count threads started in the last week or two.


Ah, I know where I screwed up.

First off I have to start a think-tank or two and some sort of political action committee. Then I have to figure out how to "frame" the debate, invent some pejorative terms, fund a few studies that prove exactly what I want them to prove, and convice some lawmakers that this is an issue that they can win on.

Then I have to get the public used to the idea, so I'll convince the lawmakers to jump on the bandwagon for some high-profile but defect-riddled piece of legislation. I'll have to get it done on both the state and federal level. With 50 states to fight in, odds are I'll get a few of them to turn over to my side. I'll just claim it's an issue for the states to decide. And when the patchwork of state laws don't resolve the issue, well then, I guess we'll just have to have federal laws, won't we?

The effects of my high-profile legislation are irrelevent; I've started the public talking about it and forced parties and politicians to take sides on the issue. If it works, I'll say we need more of the same. If it doesn't, I'll say it was due to bipartisan loopholes, or partisan loopholes, or lack of enforcement, or poor record-keeping.

I'll get the public's mentality to be "how much will we regulate it?" instead of "should we be regulating it?" or "do we have the right to regulate it?". I'm sure the MSM will be fully cooperative in pushing the talking points and creating memes.

God willing, there will be some high-profile public events that I can exploit to my advantage and integrate into the message.

It will take years of work, but in the end I'll have given myself millions of dollars in salary and worked my goals through the minefield of politics and law. I'll be a power broker, sought by many people with fat wallets.



It's a hard slap in the face when you drive for the final goal directly, isn't it? When the ultimate goal is just laid out before you?

[sandnsea]

33. So you're back to regulating

which I originally stated we already do. It's only a matter of agreeing on reasonable regulations, for sex and guns.

[krispos42]

46. You got half of it

The other half is making sure it meets constitutional muster.

And, of course, the law should serve some concrete goal besides some arbitrary or abstract "moral" position. Just because something CAN be regulated in a constitutionally acceptable way, doesn't mean it should.

I remember a scene in The West Wing about the constitutionality of outlawing adding milk to coffee. A potential federal judge nominee said something to the effect of "I think it's a bad idea, I would argue strenuously against it, but I would uphold it on Constitutional grounds."

Something like that.

[beevul]

39. Krispos, dont forget...

"First off I have to start a think-tank or two and some sort of political action committee. Then I have to figure out how to "frame" the debate, invent some pejorative terms, fund a few studies that prove exactly what I want them to prove, and convice some lawmakers that this is an issue that they can win on.

Then I have to get the public used to the idea, so I'll convince the lawmakers to jump on the bandwagon for some high-profile but defect-riddled piece of legislation. I'll have to get it done on both the state and federal level. With 50 states to fight in, odds are I'll get a few of them to turn over to my side. I'll just claim it's an issue for the states to decide. And when the patchwork of state laws don't resolve the issue, well then, I guess we'll just have to have federal laws, won't we?

The effects of my high-profile legislation are irrelevent; I've started the public talking about it and forced parties and politicians to take sides on the issue. If it works, I'll say we need more of the same. If it doesn't, I'll say it was due to bipartisan loopholes, or partisan loopholes, or lack of enforcement, or poor record-keeping.

I'll get the public's mentality to be "how much will we regulate it?" instead of "should we be regulating it?" or "do we have the right to regulate it?". I'm sure the MSM will be fully cooperative in pushing the talking points and creating memes.

God willing, there will be some high-profile public events that I can exploit to my advantage and integrate into the message.

It will take years of work, but in the end I'll have given myself millions of dollars in salary and worked my goals through the minefield of politics and law. I'll be a power broker, sought by many people with fat wallets."

You MUST use the word reasonable as a tool to paint opponents of this as other than, and you MUST use the word compromise as if theres one to be had.

[robert yates]

45. I am serious.

Prosecuting rape is not "regulating sex," it is prosecuting a violent act of aggression.

If Sears chose to allow people to have sex in their aisles, then that's their business, government shouldn't have any say about what Sears allows people to do in their store -- the only time government has any legitimate business getting involved is if the person or property of individuals are being violated.

Personally, I would still shop at Sears if they allowed people to have sex in their aisles -- probably more than I do now! That would be a business decision on their part, and it would be our personal decision whether or not we wanted to shop their or not. My guess is Sears would probably opt to not allow sex in their store, which is their right, as it is their store -- not the government's.

[Adsos Letter]

16. No...government does have the right to regulate it...

unless you think violent felons should be allowed to own guns.

[L1A1Rocker]

25. How do we define violent felons is the problem.

The charge of felony is loosening way too much. Also, there are already laws on the books in many states the ANYONE convicted of a charge of domestic battery looses their gun rights. Sounds good on paper until you see all the stupid stuff included in domestic battery. Get mad, smash a plate and now you cannot have your right to guns. Doesn't make since to me.

And of course there is always, and I mean ALWAYS, the exclusion for cops. Now if it is that important why are police excluded? I would think that a police officers unique position of authority and trust puts them on a level of superior scrutiny, not an inferior one.

[jmg257]

37. Govt has the power to regulate any right - via due process, not arbitrarily via

some "feel good / do nothing" restriction. Keeps those in power from abusing their powers and so from abusing the people.

THAT is what we the people decided to secure certain rights absolutely from govt infringement, and from infringement from an overbearing majority - the right to arms is one such right. And not only are they secured, it is also the duty of the govt to ensure those rights are protected.

[Adsos Letter]

40. I would hardly describe restricting violent felons from gun ownership...

a "feel good/do nothing" restriction.

[jmg257]

41. Me neither. And how were their rights (correctly) suspended? Via due process...

They weren't just declared to be a "violent felon" from some would-be tyrant in Washington. THAT would allow those in power to declare ANY opposition to be anything they want, to remove all rights arbitrarily, to remove or silence dissenters, to DISarm the people without cause, to jail people without recourse. This sounds familiar, right?

Absolute rights like those enumerated in the BoR keep the people from being abused by usurpers and tryants (and from a majority).



"Article the seventh . . . No person shall be held to answer...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

(the 5th amendment)

[L1A1Rocker]

3. Hey! The comma is in the right spot!

I know it's a little off topic but it drives me nuts when people add commas to the 2A, effectively changing its meaning.

[jody]

4. Thanks.

:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Ah, all 3 commas are there in the original.

If there is only one comma it is incorrect.

Try reading it sometime.

[Turbo Teg]

8. Why

Is the flag upside down in your avatar?

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. It is the well known, and accepted by the United States Flag Code,

signal for distress.

It will continue to fly this way until Bush is out of office.

[Captain Angry]

11. I used to do that, and changed mine.

Seeing distress kept depressing me. So I went with something a little more uplifting. A leader that everybody can be proud of.

[L1A1Rocker]

13. You did ask for it. . . There is only ONE comma. See the evidence

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm



ARTICLE THE SECOND
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.14

This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term "state" is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.15,16, 17

This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading:

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. 18

(The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a "literal print" of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)19

Thus, the correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified.

Why the Commas are Important

It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serve only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous. These points will be demonstrated later in the Second Amendment Series.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

21. If you want more evidence it's easy to find

I just googled "how many commas in the second amendment" and came up with several sources. You COULD do the same but for some reason you don't want to have a reasoned discussion. Perhaps maybe it is because you were proven wrong? Perhaps? Maybe? Probably. Most defiantly.

Deny everything, admit nothing, make counter accusations. Yep, that's how your las post went. Of course you added, Make disparaging remark and use abusive language.

What rapier like whit you have, I'm almost speechless. Almost:) Have a nice day.

[L1A1Rocker]

22. So you now agree that there is only ONE comma in the 2A.

Since you fail to back up YOUR claim with evidence and only attack my source you must concede the point. Thank you

[jody]

34. The National Archives (NARA) has the punctuation below.

Amendment II

"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."

[jody]

36. I downloaded a picture of the original and it has three comas as I quoted above. n/t

[jmg257]

38. Commas don't change the meaning at all. The right will always be secured, no matter how it is parsed

[Glorfindel]

9. A well-nourished Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and consume Broccoli, shall not be infringed. :evilgrin:

[Will E Orwontee]

47. the right of the people . . .

The founders were linguists and were well acquainted with Latin and their writings show this. The construction, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is an absolute phrase (specifically an ablative absolute).

An absolute phrase might explain why what follows happens or perhaps why it may be prudent to take the following action but it does not change or condition or create a dependency on what follows.

Let's examine a simple one:

All things considered, it’s not a bad idea.

Whether or not the idea is bad or not, does not depend upon if all things were actually, truthfully and exhaustively considered or if that anything at all must be considered to in fact decide if the idea is bad or not.

Let's try another simple one to make sure the principle is understood:

The teacher being ill, class is canceled.

Can the class only be canceled if the teacher is sick?

What if he is lying about being sick and is actually out playing golf; is class still cancelled?

Must class always be canceled if the teacher is ill? What if the teacher is ill but toughs it out and comes in, can the class be held?

Let's see if we can force reading qualifications and conditions onto the restrictive clause in sentences grammatically constructed like the 2nd Amendment with an declaratory absolute clause preceding the actionable, restrictive clause . . .

A well maintained road system being necessary to efficiently commute to and from work, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed.

Is the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles limited or conditioned to only commuting to and from work?

Is the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles limited or conditioned for retired persons or housewives or the independently wealthy because they do not work; are they to be "deautoed?"

Is the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles limited or conditioned to permit only driving on a governmentally maintained road system?

Is the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles limited or conditioned so that they may only drive on those specific roads deemed by the government to be necessary for commuting?

Is the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles limited or conditioned in such a way to forbid them to take a scenic route to and from work, is the most efficient route the only one deemed "legal?"

A well educated electorate being necessary for the perpetuation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Is the right of the people to keep and read books limited or conditioned so that only registered voters (the electorate) may keep and read books?

Is the right of the people to keep and read books limited or conditioned so that only those books deemed "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" be owned and read?

Is the right of the people to keep and read books limited or conditioned so that any books deemed NOT "necessary to the perpetuation of a free state" can be banned?

Is the right of the people to keep and read books limited or conditioned so that books deemed dangerous to the "perpetuation of a free state" can be banned?

Is the right of the people to keep and read books limited or conditioned so only those with an government certified IQ above 120 and deemed "well educated" by the government, may keep and read books?

[last1standing]

12. In which case it would never have been ratified rendering your point rather moot.

And silly. Sorry, but it's true.

[jody]

14. If the 2nd limited RKBA to the Natl. Guard it also would not have been ratified. Sorry but its true.

[last1standing]

15. That has nothing to do with your O/P.

I'm not saying that guns should be banned. I'm saying if you're going to spend your days and nights obsessing and arguing with everyone about it, at least make a point that can't be knocked down as silly so quickly. The truth is that amendment was written so broadly, it can be interpreted two vastly different ways.

My own opinion is that we should strike a compromise between complete confiscation and the ability to own your own arsenal complete with rocket launchers. I know that would never fly in the Gungeon but that's why I rarely come in here.

[jody]

17. It has everything to do with my OP. My OP is true and adds a touch of humor to how anti-RKBA types

misconstrue the literal meaning of the 2nd.

Have a peaceful night. :hi:

[last1standing]

18. We'll just have to completely disagree on that.

But you have a good night as well. :)

[L1A1Rocker]

20. Just what do you have against rocket launchers.

The 2A protects all arms that are not transported/used by carriage. Rocket launchers are man portable and protected!! Of course my 1919A4 while man portable is considered crew serviceable. Not sure how that works into things.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. "This is my rifle ... This is my gun..."

You know the rest.

Anyway, you forgot the words "well-regulated": good muzzle control, no negligent discharges, etc.
:rofl:

[slackmaster]

42. Practice makes perfect!

:hi:

[beevul]

43. The Assault Sex Ban...

Any combination of 2 or more of the following used during sexual relations shall constitute "Assault Sex", and shall be unlawful:


Clothing:
Stockings
garter belt
teddy
Any clothing that does not have a legitimate wearing purpose.

18 makes and models of clothing have been specifically banned, due to obviously being assault sex clothing...to be named later.


Other:
blindfold
vibrator
clamps
handcuffs
rope
riding crop
bullwhip
cat-o-nine tails
high heels
warming oil
viagra

18 specific brands and models of sexual "accessories" have been banned due to clearly being "assault sex" accesories...to be named later...



LOL...sorry. I couldn't help it.

[jody]

44. And I say!