Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: 2asisters.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to 2asisters.org.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:They ignore this one by MoneyT · · Score: 1 · on ACLU Sues FBI Over ISP Records

    Educate yourself . And please note it says "The right of the people" if the people refers to the militia, then only the militia has the right to free speech.

  2. Re:ACLU to help out? by Flamerule · · Score: 4, Insightful · on Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
    Did Jefferson qualify his prose with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" because he was feeling particularly verbose?
    Firstly, Jefferson didn't write the Bill of Rights. James Madison did. And the phrase isn't a qualification, it's an explanation.
    The founders were not idiots, and Jefferson was not an incompetent writer. Every syllable is there for a purpose.
    Indeed. But we would disagree on what that purpose is.

    Here's a page I found the other day, that had an interesting analogy in it: examine the sentence

    A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
    If you believe, as you appear to, that the first bit in the 2nd Amendment implies certain restrictions on how to interpret the second part, then you should also believe that in the sentence above, people will only be allowed to read books if they are members of the well-schooled electorate.
    If the founders simply meant that we should have unfettered access to weapons, everything before the comma is extraneous and misleading.
    No, it's not misleading. It's just misleading you, into believing that Jefferson (no, Madison) intended that private firearm ownership be restricted to some sort of state-controlled militia. I notice that you in no way had any rebuttal to grandparent's point that
    It is utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people could believe that a group of founders who had just successfully led an armed rebellion drawing heavily on the grassroots arms and knowledge of arms against an officially sanctioned armed State could have intended that only arms sanctioned by a new State and controlled by them be allowed.
    Please respond -- preferably to the substantive issue, instead of with incorrect grammatical pedantry.
  3. Re:Ben Franklin quote by MoneyT · · Score: 2 · on Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign

    WTF?

    Amendment II

    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.

    It might do you a world of good to read this too:

    The Second Amendment word for word according to an expert on the English Language

  4. Re:ACLU is Weasly? by MoneyT · · Score: 1 · on Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels

    Luckily for us, the second amendment applies to individuals as does the rest of the bill of rights

    as you can plainly see here

    Likewise, unless "the people" are not individuals, the 10th applies as well:


    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  5. Re:What about Second Amendment rights? by MoneyT · · Score: 1 · on Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels

    Thankfuly for us, the 2nd amendment is individual rights (as is the rest of the bill of rights). see here for more info

  6. Re:Eldred is gonna lose. by mamba-mamba · · Score: 4, Informative · on Lessig's Thoughts On Eldred v. Ashcroft Arguments

    As you say, this is an off-topic thread, of course.

    I think the idea behind "well-regulated" might mean that the people (whoever they are) MUST be in control of the militia. That is to say, the 2nd ammendment in no way justifies private armies, but is designed to encourage every able-bodied man (or person, nowadays) to take seriously his (or her) obligation to defend the country against hostile takeover.

    Here is a URL to a (pro-gun) discussion of this idea:
    http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm

    Since I admit that this is off-topic, and posted with "No Score +1 bonus," and since this is a reply to a reply to a reply, and thus will not be read by many people, please don't mod me down!
    MM

  7. Re:Stoopid Stoopid Brits by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1 · on Even More Surveillance Cameras For England
    The fact that Americans can't handle their cars any better than their guns is hardly something to be proud of.

    I'm not saying I'm proud of it. I'm just wondering why there isn't an anti-auto lobbyist group in Washington five times bigger than the anti-gun groups. Why isn't there a Million Mom (or rather, 40k Misinformed Mothers) March to get cars off the roads? Why doesn't a car rampage get as much press as a gun rampage? Spin/FUD by the media and others with an agenda, that's why.


    Flamebait != Disagree