Does The NRA Represent Sane Gun Owners Anymore?

[Galloism]

That's really rich, considering you've been doing exactly that. You started from the position of "ban all firearms", and are attempting to interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your purpose.

Again, what legal precedent, ruling, etc do you have, other than your personal opinion to support your position?

No, I'm just reading the Amendment at face value

bWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Given you refuse to honestly analyze the grammar contained within, or any historical precedent surrounding it or documents from the time, that's rich.

and giving economic effect to each and every single word in it (like all the surrounding Amendments).

I'm not cherry-picking and choosing to ignore 50% of what the actual text says

We're not ignoring it. We're taking it at face value - that it's an explanation, just as it appears, and is a grammatically correct interpretation of the text.

[Infected Mushroom]

No, I'm just reading the Amendment at face value

bWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Given you refuse to honestly analyze the grammar contained within, or any historical precedent surrounding it or documents from the time, that's rich.

and giving economic effect to each and every single word in it (like all the surrounding Amendments).

I'm not cherry-picking and choosing to ignore 50% of what the actual text says

We're not ignoring it. We're taking it at face value - that it's an explanation, just as it appears, and is a grammatically correct interpretation of the text.

no, your explanation requires you to ignore an operative condition

[Galloism]

no, your explanation requires you to ignore an operative condition

What operative condition?

[Infected Mushroom]

no, your explanation requires you to ignore an operative condition

What operative condition?

that a militia has to remain necessary to the preservation of a free state

[Galloism]

What operative condition?

that a militia has to remain necessary to the preservation of a free state

Except it doesn't say that. It recognizes that a militia is necessary to a free state (probably still true, given we still DO have a militia), but it doesn't say it has to remain so.

Please cite the operative word that says it has to remain necessary.

[Gun Manufacturers]

bWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Given you refuse to honestly analyze the grammar contained within, or any historical precedent surrounding it or documents from the time, that's rich.



We're not ignoring it. We're taking it at face value - that it's an explanation, just as it appears, and is a grammatically correct interpretation of the text.

no, your explanation requires you to ignore an operative condition

The first clause (about the militia) can't stand on its own as a sentence, unlike the second clause WHICH CAN. That is what makes the first clause a subordinate clause. The fact that it precedes the second clause makes it a prefatory clause. The second clause outlines the right, and the first clause gives a justification.

[Infected Mushroom]

that a militia has to remain necessary to the preservation of a free state

Except it doesn't say that. It recognizes that a militia is necessary to a free state (probably still true, given we still DO have a militia), but it doesn't say it has to remain so.

Please cite the operative word that says it has to remain necessary.

its in the first part of the sentence for a reason, its highlighting the operational context

since in our present day we no longer need a militia to preserve a free society, the rest of it no longer applies

[Gun Manufacturers]

Except it doesn't say that. It recognizes that a militia is necessary to a free state (probably still true, given we still DO have a militia), but it doesn't say it has to remain so.

Please cite the operative word that says it has to remain necessary.

its in the first part of the sentence for a reason, its highlighting the operational context

since in our present day we no longer need a militia to preserve a free society, the rest of it no longer applies

It doesn't say, "Only while 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". There's no expiration or sunset built into the amendment.

[Infected Mushroom]

its in the first part of the sentence for a reason, its highlighting the operational context

since in our present day we no longer need a militia to preserve a free society, the rest of it no longer applies

It doesn't say, "Only while 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". There's no expiration or sunset built into the amendment.

it does, its just in really old language

[Galloism]

Except it doesn't say that. It recognizes that a militia is necessary to a free state (probably still true, given we still DO have a militia), but it doesn't say it has to remain so.

Please cite the operative word that says it has to remain necessary.

its in the first part of the sentence for a reason, its highlighting the operational context

No, if it was an operational context, it would say "So long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or "As long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or something along those lines.

It does not use a limiting term.

since in our present day we no longer need a militia to preserve a free society, the rest of it no longer applies

Then why do we continue to maintain one if we don't need it?

[Galloism]

It doesn't say, "Only while 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". There's no expiration or sunset built into the amendment.

it does, its just in really old language

Prove it - show that in english a little over 200 years ago that limiting clauses were not needed to limit an operative clause.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It doesn't say, "Only while 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". There's no expiration or sunset built into the amendment.

it does, its just in really old language

It really doesn't.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

since in our present day we no longer need a militia to preserve a free society, the rest of it no longer applies

Nice anecdotal opinion with no bearing on legal language and interpretation you have there.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It doesn't say, "Only while 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". There's no expiration or sunset built into the amendment.

it does, its just in really old language

Bullshit. Explain it to us. Show us the modifier, the expiration date.

[Infected Mushroom]

its in the first part of the sentence for a reason, its highlighting the operational context

No, if it was an operational context, it would say "So long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or "As long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or something along those lines.

It does not use a limiting term.

since in our present day we no longer need a militia to preserve a free society, the rest of it no longer applies

Then why do we continue to maintain one if we don't need it?

because it helps (more troops for the military potentially)

but it is not NECESSARY. With or without a militia tomorrow, the USA as a country remains protected by the conventional military.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

No, if it was an operational context, it would say "So long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or "As long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or something along those lines.

It does not use a limiting term.


Then why do we continue to maintain one if we don't need it?

because it helps (more troops for the military potentially)

but it is not NECESSARY. With or without a militia tomorrow, the USA as a country remains protected by the conventional military.

A standing military that could obviously threaten the "free" part of "free state." Thanks for giving us more evidence for our side.

[Galloism]

No, if it was an operational context, it would say "So long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or "As long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" or something along those lines.

It does not use a limiting term.


Then why do we continue to maintain one if we don't need it?

because it helps (more troops for the military potentially)

but it is not NECESSARY. With or without a militia tomorrow, the USA as a country remains protected by the conventional military.

Our standard army doesn't have enough troops to serve our interests.

As a result, the militia is still necessary.

[Infected Mushroom]

because it helps (more troops for the military potentially)

but it is not NECESSARY. With or without a militia tomorrow, the USA as a country remains protected by the conventional military.

A standing military that could obviously threaten the "free" part of "free state." Thanks for giving us more evidence for our side.

a standing military's job is to protect that free society, not to threaten the free state

and in the USA's entire history, the military has never acted contrary to that mission

Hence, this is just fear mongering and not based on history

[Infected Mushroom]

because it helps (more troops for the military potentially)

but it is not NECESSARY. With or without a militia tomorrow, the USA as a country remains protected by the conventional military.

Our standard army doesn't have enough troops to serve our interests.

As a result, the militia is still necessary.

No it has enough troops

the fact that X soldiers (some of them being in the militia) are retained is not evidence that if the number of soldiers were less than X, the free society is threatened

you are conflating ''more is better within reason'' with ''the number we have now is the exact minimum number that's necessary''

[Paddy O Fernature]

Our standard army doesn't have enough troops to serve our interests.

As a result, the militia is still necessary.

No it has enough troops

the fact that X soldiers (some of them being in the militia) are retained is not evidence that if the number of soldiers were less than X, the free society is threatened

you are conflating ''more is better within reason'' with ''the number we have now is the exact minimum number that's necessary''

Prove it. I'd love to see some actual facts backing this claim up...

[Galloism]

Our standard army doesn't have enough troops to serve our interests.

As a result, the militia is still necessary.

No it has enough troops

the fact that X soldiers (some of them being in the militia) are retained is not evidence that if the number of soldiers were less than X, the free society is threatened

you are conflating ''more is better within reason'' with ''the number we have now is the exact minimum number that's necessary''

Ok, for the sake of amusing you, prove the militia is no longer necessary.

Proof, not conjecture. Prove that it's not necessary, but I give you one additional condition.

Your conditions must ALSO show that it was necessary to have a militia in 1788.

[Infected Mushroom]

No it has enough troops

the fact that X soldiers (some of them being in the militia) are retained is not evidence that if the number of soldiers were less than X, the free society is threatened

you are conflating ''more is better within reason'' with ''the number we have now is the exact minimum number that's necessary''

Ok, for the sake of amusing you, prove the militia is no longer necessary.

Proof, not conjecture. Prove that it's not necessary, but I give you one additional condition.

Your conditions must ALSO show that it was necessary to have a militia in 1788.

countries have managed to maintain a free society while fielding a much smaller number of soldiers than the USA (ex France, Norway etc)

[Galloism]

Ok, for the sake of amusing you, prove the militia is no longer necessary.

Proof, not conjecture. Prove that it's not necessary, but I give you one additional condition.

Your conditions must ALSO show that it was necessary to have a militia in 1788.

countries have managed to maintain a free society while fielding a much smaller number of soldiers than the USA (ex France, Norway etc)

That would mean that it was also not necessary in 1788, which means that you're asserting the founding fathers were retarded.

Try again.

[Infected Mushroom]

countries have managed to maintain a free society while fielding a much smaller number of soldiers than the USA (ex France, Norway etc)

That would mean that it was also not necessary in 1788, which means that you're asserting the founding fathers were retarded.

Try again.

the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary in 1788 within the context of the war with Great Britain

[Galloism]

That would mean that it was also not necessary in 1788, which means that you're asserting the founding fathers were retarded.

Try again.

the Founding Fathers believed it was necessary in 1788 within the context of the war with Great Britain

They could have very well fielded a regular army, though, making the militia not necessary.

Like I said, try again.