Don’t fixate on the concrete wall thing. He is just trying to say that these weapons are too powerful to have any practical civilian purpose.
Home defense is a reason people justify firearm ownership on a more regular basis. But it is a minor part of the 2nd ammendment. As you stated, it has much more to do with defense against the state.
“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.”
Try to watch if you can.
Watched an interesting story last night about how many Congressional democrats are quietly pro-gun. Harry Reid even managed to slip some language into Obamacare that the NRA pushed for and then hosted NRA executives at the opening of a new firing range.
That’s only one official version of the 2nd amendment. The other official version has a comma after “militia”. I think the gun control folks argue that the lack of a comma means that gun ownership is only protected for members of a well regulated militia.
I don’t think the comma really makes a difference to the meaning as I read it, but that’s just me.
That comma, or the lack of it, is the crux of the argument regarding what the 2nd amendment actually protects.
I don’t see it. Maybe my understanding of grammar is bad. I think if people are trying to argue that a comma somehow changes a pretty clear statement then they’re grasping at straws. I mean, if people want to argue for changing it, fine. But if people are trying to read into a phantom comma that I don’t believe alters the meaning of the sentance, it seems like they’re really grasping. I mean, Jefferson, who more or less authored and championed the whole thing provides background in his writings that make it pretty clear what his intentions were.
Further light on the subject provided by Jefferson around that time:
““It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.” --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.”
“”[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811"
"“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).”
–Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353"
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
… and whatever Thomas Jefferson said was, and will always be, RIGHT.
A bit like the Quran
I’m not taking a position either way, just pointing out that until 2010 when the SC made a definitive ruling in DC vs. Heller, each side argued that the inclusion or exclusion of the comma supported their position.
BTW, Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, not Jefferson, but I suspect Madison’s views were basically the same as Jefferson’s.
In an early part of my career, I was attending stuff at the UN for the preparation conferences for these big global agreements that get ignored after they are signed. I was amazed that - instead of talking about merits or demerits of things, virtually all of the motions beign passed were about where to stick a comma, or to put certain phrases in brackets for rewording.
The presence or absence of a comma really can make a huge difference in how a law or treaty is interpreted or applied. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but it does.
I never said TJ was right. I am however saying you need to work on reading comprehension.
“I mean, if people want to argue for changing it, fine. But if people are trying to read into a phantom comma that I don’t believe alters the meaning of the sentance, it seems like they’re really grasping.”
I clearly stated that if you want to argue in favor of changing the text, fine, I was simply stating that TJ was clear on what he meant, so arguing against gun control by using a grammatical interpretation isn’t probably the best way to go about it.
Yeah, I understand the SC would go that route because they are tasked with upholding the constitution and for lawmakers it’s easier to reinterpret than change the document. But I also think it’s a poor way to go about it, because instead of having the conversation that should take place, we have one about grammar.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
Thanks for the advice. Please can you recommend any books / techniques etc.? The GMAT must be flawed for leading me to believe otherwise.
LOL, the GMAT is how you benchmark yourself? Isn’t that test based on middle school curriculum? What’d you score, a 720?
Better than you did… 780
Now, please get back to patronising and moralising others. Something you seem to love to do.
Well, I hope you still keep it on your fridge!
Also, you never addressed the fact that your reading comprehension failed. Or was that what you were attempting to do here?
You are the one who failed because you assumed that I bothered to read your utter drivel. ha ha
So you just started talking about Thomas Jefferson on the internet in a thread you entered in (but didn’t read) for no reason? Are you actually this dumb? Also, I call BS on the GMAT, since you can’t string to logically coherent thoughts together.
If you want to scan an image, I’ll accept it.
Oh dear, I am gutted. The most intelligent man on earth doesn’t believe me