 |
Re: "brains" - must be one of those ironic names
Author: HUTCH 7.62
Date: 02-13-2014 - 23:26
brains Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear ...huh? The fact that the educated Mr.
> Madison used the absolute ablative in his sentence
> structure does not make the first clause any less
> pertinent or applicable, and the word is "the
> people", not "the individual". Last time I
> checked, people was the plural, meaning that in a
> community, arsenals could, yea, should be kept.
> That is one interpretation that is put forward by
> serious thinkers on the matter,e.g. Garry Wills,
> who is anything but a "knee-jerk", sorry,
> reflexive "liberal". Sadly , that is not the
> prevailing view at SCOTUS.
> As well argue that the Preamble, you know the
> one that begins, "We, the people of ther United
> States of America..." is irrelevant in the
> interpretation of the rest of the Constitution.
> The whole amendment is only that one sentence,
> badly written though it might be, and thus all of
> it is very much to the point. I'll leave aside for
> the moment the realities of arms in the early
> Republic, save to ask if you've heard of Shay's
> Rebellion or the Whisky Rebellion, the one under
> the Articles and the other during Washington's
> administration and the general sentiment about
> them both.
> BTW, the screen name is a tribute to my
> grandfather, a freight and passenger conductor on
> the NYC, the guy they called "the brains" in the
> argot of the era.
Damn I almost agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Only difference is IMHO I believe the 2nd is the back bone of the rest of the constitution without it the rest is vulnerable.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear ...huh? The fact that the educated Mr.
> Madison used the absolute ablative in his sentence
> structure does not make the first clause any less
> pertinent or applicable, and the word is "the
> people", not "the individual". Last time I
> checked, people was the plural, meaning that in a
> community, arsenals could, yea, should be kept.
> That is one interpretation that is put forward by
> serious thinkers on the matter,e.g. Garry Wills,
> who is anything but a "knee-jerk", sorry,
> reflexive "liberal". Sadly , that is not the
> prevailing view at SCOTUS.
> As well argue that the Preamble, you know the
> one that begins, "We, the people of ther United
> States of America..." is irrelevant in the
> interpretation of the rest of the Constitution.
> The whole amendment is only that one sentence,
> badly written though it might be, and thus all of
> it is very much to the point. I'll leave aside for
> the moment the realities of arms in the early
> Republic, save to ask if you've heard of Shay's
> Rebellion or the Whisky Rebellion, the one under
> the Articles and the other during Washington's
> administration and the general sentiment about
> them both.
> BTW, the screen name is a tribute to my
> grandfather, a freight and passenger conductor on
> the NYC, the guy they called "the brains" in the
> argot of the era.
Damn I almost agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Only difference is IMHO I believe the 2nd is the back bone of the rest of the constitution without it the rest is vulnerable.
