Please cite the passage in the Constitution or its amendments where it says a sufficient reason isn’t sufficient for passing a law, and that it has to be a necessary reason. Or where it delves into the philosophical underpinnings of said differentiation.
Our current rules of grammar. They did not have the rules we have today. Noah Webster is credited with the beginning the standardization of American grammar. You might recognize his surname on a certain set of dictionaries.
More than one draft of the 2nd amendment exists, with the commas in different places. The placements don’t make that much of a difference.
Again for a bunch of people who bitch about semantics and parsing, you would think you guys could actually site where the Federal government engaged in gun control, rather than relying on this tired argument of making a sufficient reason a necessary one.
Yeah, right.
For starters, I am not sure why you are making what I take to be a phony distinction between “necessary” and “sufficient” since by so doing you obviously mean to introduce some arcane definition into the conversation that was not part of the original topic.
Secondly, your claim about 18th century grammar is subject to much dispute among people whose ox is in danger of being gored.
Thirdly, your fondness for the writings of the Founders and ratifiers is not unique and I daresay I have some well founded opinions of my own about those writings.
Fourthly, I have said already that I foresee “a collective ceding of constitutional rights” as a necessary step in adopting the plan I offered. I’m not sure, but evidently this is what has led you to the legally-piggily about two kinds of reasons.
Finally, I’ll just say that I have only posted so far in this thread in the belief that a serious discussion is intended and warranted. As soon as that belief disintegrates, I shall act otherwise.
Yes. Exactly what I challenged him on. Did you not see my post?
^^^^^^^^
Perhaps BillyDog missed it as well.
Are you serious? (typo aside)
1 Like
Not until I posted mine. I was still typing my five thoughts when you posted.
A sufficient reason means A => B, whenever you have A you will have B. Whenever, we have the need for a militia secure the free state, the people’s right to bear arms will not be infringed upon.
The need for ensure the free state is sufficient enough reason not to infringe on the people’s right to bear arms.
A necessary reason means A <= B, whenever B exist A must necessarily exist. A militia need not exist for the people’s right to bear arms to not be infringed upon. If you think otherwise, then tell me, if society collapsed tomorrow, would you not pick up a weapon to defend yourself?
For starters, I showed what necessary and sufficient means.
Secondly and Thirdly, I high anticipate you sharing what you know…
Fourthly, I saw that, but that’s a matter of opinion on the degree we need to cede our Constitutional rights. So I am happy to get into that, as well.
Finally, who cares? I wouldn’t ask why you stopped replying. Would anyone else? Get over yourself.
Then by all means, cite federal gun control efforts and shut me up already. When can I expect that? I’ve only challenged all of you to do that over the years, and it is strange that we keep sticking to the very thing you bitch about in other threads, is it not?
“The Brady Bill” and “The National firearms act of 1934” for a couple examples. Now dance Monkey Boy.
Wow. What did George Washington say about those? Oh wait, he and the entire Founding generation were long fucking dead since then.
See what I mean? Keep on Dancing! LolZ!
Concession accepted.
Don’t cry Crackdawg, you asked for an example of the Federal government gun control efforts, I gave you two.
Then by all means, cite federal gun control efforts and shut me up already. When can I expect that? I’ve only challenged all of you to do that over the years, and it is strange that we keep sticking to the very thing you bitch about in other threads, is it not?
Can you say Pwnt?
But your citations had nothing to do with your contention that EVERYONE reads the 2nd Amendment as requiring a well regulated militia for the people right to bear arms to not be infringed upon, except for gun fondlers.
So you wandered into non sequitur land by citing legislation that had nothing to do with your point. Fucking duh. LMAO@U
Link?
Here, I’ll post the reply you ran from.
Should guns be free, then? Because rich people can afford them, poor people maybe can’t.