Agnostic.com

3 4

What the Actual f~&k????!!!!

LenHazell53 9 July 13
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

If as Keith said the 2nd Amendment were about the regulation of state militias, the founders could have omitted the second clause. They didn't omit it.

He addresses precisely that "to keep and bear Arms" does not mean to own and to stock pile in a hotel room over looking a public gathering place.

@LenHazell53 Agreed, the first clause says militias are necessary.

Where are the words that authorize the states to make and maintain militias?

Without these words, anyone can make and maintain any number of militias. Without these words, Keith has only confirmation bias.

@yvilletom
What are you talking about?
I'm not even American and I can infer from the wording
#"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
MEANS a state run militia, NOT a band of trigger happy vigilantes.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or wilfully ignorant because the only other alternative is that you are bloody stupid.

@LenHazell53 Where is the delegation of authority, or power? In law, inferring it is not enough. The courts require power to be explicitly granted and limited.

BTW, a rule of debate that Parliament uses explicitly prohibits the use of the word “bloody”. The rules are in a large book authored by Thomas May. I live in the US and I have read much of the book. I have also read the rules of Congress and those of the United Nations general assembly.

Bloody ignorance. ( grin)

@yvilletom
The "large book " you refer to is "A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament" by Clerk of the House of Commons, Thomas Erskine May, known professionally as Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 1844, now in it 25th revised edition.
It "explicitly prohibits" nothing, because it is NOT a book of rules, but a guide to and explanation of how the procedure evolved and of the conventions and traditions of both the upper and lower houses.

However

  1. this is completely irelevent to the discussion
    and
  2. Since you have "read much of the book" you already knew all that, did you not, you just chose not to name the volume, mention which edition you were quoting from and decided to misname the author no doubt confusing Thomas Erskine May, with Thomas May the poet, dramatist and historian of the Renaissance era? Who died 200 years prior to the august organ of the former being published. ( grin)

@LenHazell53

Surprised, I am. Green eggs and ham.
I know of “Erskine” but have too little pedantry to use it.
The May I saw had a half page of what not to say in debate.
I gave a talk on some of the various names the English gave their parliaments, one of them the early Parliamentum
Insanum for disagreeing with the then-king.

You have little if any reason to read the Precedents of the U. S. House of Representative by Asher Hinds, the early House Parliamentarian.

1

His opus. Drop the mic and head for the park, Keith.

I'm happy he's yelling about it..MSN sure ain't keeping it in the minds of Americans, things like this need to be front and center.

@Charlene More of “we the people” have to keep it In our minds.

As not said in the movie Casablanca, “Say it again, Charlene.” ( grin )

3

He always nails it..

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:609229
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.