one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Who exactly should determine what it should be now *now*? Isn't that the supreme court?
No.
I think Berengaria posted a very interesting and comprehensive history to it.
Interesting yes, comprehensive no. It discusses one aspect of the militia history in the United States, but ignores (among other things) the history of the militia in English Common Law, which was very familiar to the framers of the Constitution.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
The problem is, they are not around to ask so all you get are interpretations.
Not really true. They left very extensive notes on what they meant by what they wrote. If you want to debate the US constitution read "The Federalist Papers." For that matter you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers." Its harder to find but sheds some light on what the losing side thought.
Edited to add. The National Guard was founded in 1903.
Berengaria, that's true, but I will note that at least some gun control efforts started as attempts to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans.
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html
http://monderno.com/monderno/if-youre-anti-gun-youre-a-racist/
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Simon,
If you want an honest debate about this you should do some research on what the framers of the Constitution meant by "militia." Its at least as relevant as what they meant by "firearms."
And to answer your question, we have accepted some reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms for quite some time. Military grade weapons, such as fully automatic rifles and machine guns are highly regulated, and I've never seen a weapon that fires explosive shells for sale to private citizens.
There may be some nuts around advocating a right to own tanks or whatever, few serious people take such a position. Asserting an argument from an absurd position is what's inane.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Now, tell me again how you need your guns and the lame reasons you think justify them.
Why should I bother? You've made it clear you don't want to hear a different opinion.
i think its vitally important to realized that the wts now has as of this year probably close to 2 billion in overall assets worldwide that it can live off for a very long time.
i get this gut feeling that the wts heads are positioning themselves and the organization in tentative survival mode for the long run.. so many cut backs, the selling off of many branches, the down sizing of much of its operations, are all tell tale hints that even the heads of this organization are preparing for the eventful devolving of this organization.
the wts gb leaders say that jah's chariot is moving along at a faster pace but in reflection of how this organization been conducting itself as of late, that wouldn't necessarily be the real truth of the matter.
I think the money is probably already in the safest country they can find. The US government is VERY reluctant to tread on the 1st amendment protection of churches. Unless they are doing something like outright criminal (think the Mormon renegades marrying thirteen year old girls) they aren't going to pursue a religion. That isn't true in a lot of other places.
i have just finished watching the latest episode of i am cait!
lol yes i watch it!!!
they were discussing politics.
macys: people are allowed to not like Jenner, her driving record, her political opinions or her constant reality-show self promotion and saying so is not "hate".
True. And I disagree with her self-promotion and stupid reality show (for the record, I dislike all "reality" shows). Her politics are her business and I don't know beans about her driving record. But in my mind saying her expressed opinions must be the result of cognitive dissonance reminds me too much of being called mentally diseased. Disagree to your heart's content, but leave out the personal attacks.
I also think there is too much emphasis in our public climate on the idea that all people with shared skin color or genitalia should think in a particular way.
Edited to add: my daughter self-describes as "gender fluid" or some such. She's married to a transgender queer woman. Both are welcome members of my family.
right smack into (what looks like) the front entry!.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-13/78yo-female-driver-crash-jehovahs-witnesses-church/7243268.
this was in australia, but the khs i've seen (in the us) are designed so that you'd have to almost intentionally want to ram a building to cause this kind of damage.
i would probably collapse laughing.
What Outlaw said. If the Watchtower collapsed the people who really need some one to lead them would just go find somebody else, probably elders, CO's and the like who would still claim divine appointment. That and I would expect to see a lot of suicides, especially among older folks who realized they wasted their lives.
I don't think it would be a pretty thing.
hi, i believe that a lady is put on earth to satisfy the needs of her partner and respect his views in all matters.. i realize some here may consider that old fashioned and not based on sexual equality.. yet a lady and man are not created equal because the lady gives birth and the man must sire many children.
if you are a lady under 30 and keen to meet me, willing to cook and breed, then please message me here.
please do not contact me if you disagree with my views, we can agree to differ.
