Is Anybody Out There

[I'm Free]

.




IS Anybody Out There

:confused:


I've been here for 2 days and no one is here..(insert echo)


Somebody light a candle, its dark and lonely and I can feel the hot breath of something breathing on the back of my neck..

[B]Hello.....Hello....hel....lo?

[pb]

ok let`s discuss gun control, 2nd amendment and the NRA

let`s start with the 2nd amendment

I`m sure this has been discussed by scholars before but, is every one interpreting the 2nd amendment correctly?

Seems to me that the first part about militia is directly related to the second part about people keeping and bearing arms.

So the people bearng the arms need to be a member of a miltia. Hopefully a recognized one concerned about all citizens and not just their group.

the thoughts are seperated by just commas and not ;;;;;s

If you look down in ammendment 5 there are ;;;;s separating different thoughts that are not entirely connected.

This amendment is not saying that any Joe-smoe out on the street has the right to bear arms, just those in militias.

[I'm Free]

.
If then you are going to divide and disembowel this peice of parchment based upon the punctuation to translate and thus conclude and define its meaning; you then have to apply the same meathod to define all written materials by the same authors in the same time period to translate and interpret meanings in the same manor wouldn't you?..They wouldn't make sense if you were to do that would they?...one more thing, what army?..:D


In the time period you speak of the people were the army.

[pb]

No I`m not disecting the ammendments, I`m reading it the way it was intended to be read as one thought.

The militia today is called the National Guard and the Coast Guard.

[I'm Free]

.

I disagree, you have very much portioned the subject matter into more than a simple reading of its message, no indeed you have created an interptation by dividing the parchment into more than its sum; by needing to site the punctuation to translate aginst what is evident, and to platform your very arguement upon the way it effects the message; well then, it only makes sense that you first must denie and disarm the message doesn't it?... Ofcourse, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to site it as the foundation of this debate.

The message is clear and substained even beyond your division, The people who wrote it were not English teachers nor writers; but heck even if they were it would not ensure the correct punctuation, even today writers have ie;"proof readers" for that, Frankly, I find your debate rather weak..cleaver but easily disproven and countered by the very platform you founded it upon and in less than two replies had to denie..:rolleyes:


Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you on the way out.

:D

[pb]

hogwash the message is so straight forward as you say I am I say everyone is dividing up the the message into parts when it should be read as one thats exactly what you have done no one is reading it as the simple message it is puncuation is very much a part of our language it sure makes it easier to read it is so straight forward why did ammendment 5 use ;;;;s to separate the different flows of thought these ammendments were ratified at the same time their use of english was very proper even though the authors were not english teachers they were the best educated of the land and knew how to use puncuation

[I'm Free]

.


No, one only has to review the writings of the authors as I stated prior, and see the multiple mistakes in punctuation made by all.

Even Jefferson had 'proff readers' when writing his memoirs due to his poor grammer skills, and some of the most brillant minds in American history had trouble spelling, there were no such proof readers in the construction of this parchment, and thus the mistakes reflect their personal passed history in punctuation error as example.

If you are to site the punctuation as a valid reason to "interpret" this document then as well you must site the same punctuation and history of the writers to compare, and in doing so you will find the same mistakes; as a result you can only conclude what is evident...The document is infact "Self evident" beyond your separation and need to ignore all of these facts.The very foundation of your arguement is faulty and used to counter your own debate's platform ...To site a knowledge without the inclusion of all the facts is a facetious mistake to interpret anything yet alone this parchment and its authors.One only has to research the use of their personal history in the multiple punctuation errors known, and recorded prior to this documents' creation.

The folly of your debate is a lack of knowledge to conclude an absolute beyond the facts.

Don't be angry.:mad:

[pb]

Sorry, but you have not convinced me. In fact you have convinced me further that it is one statement, one train of thought and one ammendment. The statement was not broken up into two different ammendments. Nothing more needs to be brought to the table to read what was meant by the authors.

You fell into what you acused me of doing. You are bringing way too much extra information into your support, personal history of the authors, spelling mistakes, ignorance of puncuations. You are now the one dividing and disemboweling the authors.

Fear has pushed people to interprete the ammendment as two thoughts. That we need a militia AND we all need to be armed whether we are in the militia or not. They believe that the National Guard and the Police are not enough. The sad thing is the police are out numbered by all of those scared gunowners.

So let`s move onto the NRA. Well, this next statment can really be said about many of the lobbying groups. I feel that they have way too much lobbying power. There needs to be some sort of leveling ground out there.

What are your thoughts on the lobbying groups?

[I'm Free]

I agree with you upon the lobby groups and the measure of control they have gotten over the years to create law. Many of the 'lobby groups' have become no more than local home grown terrorist taking matters outside of the law they say is importiant to them, when they don't get their way or logic over time in the form of multiple failures and injustices has been the result. I admit this is a wide paint brush and I don't lump them all in the same bucket of paint..LOL..but the color match quite well when the American people are subject to them outside of a vote..


What do you think of the folks that burned down the Humvee dealers in Calf.?...Their groups have lobbied and gained many successes through our system yet they still act as no more than a terrorist group in my opinion when they blow up factories and businesses; sad I think.

[pb]

I think it is horrible that humvee dealers were destroyed. And to top it off, with fire in California at this time of year, not too bright.

Now are you talking about the SUVs that were destroyed by the environmental group?

Don`t they realize that those humvees, SUVs will be replaced and in the process more materials comsumed, more pollution spewed out and that their own actions were polluting.

I would like to know how those questionable environmentalist are towards the environment in their everyday lives. Have they taken the log out of their own eye first?

It sounds like I hate environmentalists, I don`t. I am one, I have set up a backyard habitat, go and rescue wildflowers set for destruction, listen when not to mow and water, try not to use the air conditioner when not necessary, and all those little things that if each of us did would do a whole bunch of good of for the environment.

I really don`t understand the whys of the relationship with the tobacco industry and our government. Why does the tobacco industry have so much power? At one point there was mention of jobs lost.

Everyone has the chance of losing a job when the thing they are selling losses favor with the multitudes or has been proven to be harmful to the people. Gee, I wonder what all those people that made 8 track tapes are doing these days?