Stephen wrote:
> In what way? 

See my response to Warp's question posted 13 minutes before yours. It should 
clear up what I meant.

> your second amendment to be what they want it to mean by abbreviating it 

Not abbreviating it.

There's two valid sentences:
"Driving the cars that are green shall be illegal."
"Driving the cars, which are green, shall be illegal."

The first limits the cars being discussed to those with green paint. The 
second merely mentions that the cars are green without limiting the sentence 
to green cars.

The actual text reads
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.

Now that's just not grammatically correct. The first half of the sentence 
(before the second comma) is just kind of stuck on the front. So people in 
favor of control read the first half as putting a limit on the second half 
(else why would it be there?) while people in favor of freedom say that it's 
merely an explanation of why the government shouldn't interfere.

The version the 3/4ths of the states actually ratified essentially lacks the 
first comma there, so it's even less clear.

You could read it as "Since we need a militia, government should not 
regulate firearms." Does that mean that it shouldn't regulate fire arms and 
the reason is we need a militia? Or does that mean it shouldn't regulate the 
firearms of the militia?  There's a lot of argument because "The People" is 
used in specific ways in other places in the consitution as well, and those 
other places have been interpreted to mean the people here without 
limitation, rather than with the limitations from the clauses stuck on the 
front of *those* sentences.

Check out wiki for some of the other phrasings that were much more clear 
that weren't used for whatever reason. For example, the first versions 
explicitly said the militia is made up of the body of the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"""
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well 
armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country 
but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to 
render military service in person.
"""

It is, overall, a mess, and one that's highly politicized at that.

> Yes it is quite succinctly put. (I was just joshing the legal profession.)

Yes. It's saying "this is not a tax on stuff, but a general tax." :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:51:56 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>See my response to Warp's question posted 13 minutes before yours. It should 
>clear up what I meant.

It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
I'm obviously not very good at expressing myself. But thanks for all the time
you took.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
> something costs."
> 
> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

You can't debate fools, all they do is drag you down to their level. 
And, their level is to never read the actual document, but instead read 
one of dozens of *reposted* copies of a list of supposed "problems" 
published by some moron on the Liberty University website. For those 
that don't know, this is a super-right wing, Biblical literalist, so 
called college, which recently tried to have its "Bible Science" courses 
accredited by other colleges as valid for the use as entry requirements 
for more advanced classes, like molecular biology and physics. They are 
serious nutcases.

Among their other gems have been the suggestion that the government or 
doctors could "withdraw" funds from your bank account via automatic 
payment, when the actual section refers to streamlining the process of 
doctors *paying* to and from insurance companies, instead of having to 
send them paper checks, or other less efficient stuff.

In some cases they don't just leave off sections, they exaggerate shit 
to the point of pure stupidity.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
> against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
> day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
> too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
> later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
> outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
> movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.
> 
You fail to mention *why* it stuck. See, in some obscure sexual 
contexts, which the heavily repressed right wingers would never bother 
to look up, never mind be aware of, "tea bagging" refers to sucking on a 
guys balls. Sometimes you don't even need to create political satire, 
your enemy, when dim enough, will do it for you.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:55:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>You fail to mention *why* it stuck. See, in some obscure sexual 
>contexts, which the heavily repressed right wingers would never bother 
>to look up, never mind be aware of, "tea bagging" refers to sucking on a 
>guys balls. Sometimes you don't even need to create political satire, 
>your enemy, when dim enough, will do it for you.


Ooo! that's rude. :D
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 09/05/09 12:13, Darren New wrote:
> a good summary. Note that there's a part in the constitution that talks
> about how to change the constitution. Many people credit that (in part)
> with the longevity of the government here.

	I once started a student organization. I had to draft a constitution, 
as per regulations. I had a section on the requirements for modifying 
the constitution.

	Big mistake.

	It was impossible to change it, because the majority of the folks 
involved (officers, club members, etc) never cared about the changes 
enough to vote for them.


-- 
"Hex Dump" - Where Witches put used Curses?

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Ooo! that's rude. :D

Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to people 
like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips (since the 
entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
> said "Not really". I understand the arguments.

I didn't think you were arguing, no. I meant it's "not really" that people 
leave out parts of the sentence to change the meaning.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Sep 2009 16:17:58 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:13:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Ooo! that's rude. :D
>
>Yeah, and shortly afterwards it became much less obscure thanks to people 
>like Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert.  I'm sure there are clips (since the 
>entire shows are posted) on comedycentral.com.
>
I've been watching the Daily Show quite religiously on our Channel 4. But it is
off air for another month. :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:19:30 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> It may come as a surprise but I'm not arguing. I just wanted to know why you
>> said "Not really". I understand the arguments.
>
>I didn't think you were arguing, no. 

But I often do ;)

>I meant it's "not really" that people 
>leave out parts of the sentence to change the meaning.

I thought that some people ignored "A well regulated Militia" but that's what
you get when you only hear it third or forth hand. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message