Search me!!! Your quote from Wiki was the first I'd ever HEARD of such a debate. To anyone with even a High School education in Grammar and Composition, the construction and meaning of the 2nd Ammendment should be clear as Vodka! :wink:

I understood that point, and it's a valid one. Doesn't change the fact that I JOKINGLY pointed out!

Don't forget the beam and the mote!! I DO examine my grammar often. And like others, I make mistakes... usually because I am typing fast, being lazy, or under the influence of a bit of the ale! Sometimes, I even go back and EDIT my posts to correct those mistakes. Usually, I don't bother.

My only point was that, out of that entire Wiki article, you focused on the "debate" about whether it was, or should be, a comma or not. There should BE no debate, as the construction is obvious. And due to the construction.... so is the meaning.

Merry Christmas to YOU, too!! And don't get so touchy. You KNOW how I like to "rib" you Brits about NOT understanding OUR language! :lol:

Edited once to move a comma to correct my own mistake in punctuation!

 

Not to worry, Wot!!!

I live in South Texas, and I am currently writing a grammar book entitled "Learnin' Yerseff To Talk Gooder English".

Included in it will be a chapter entitled " How To Talk Like One Of Them High Falewtin" City Folks".

Oh, and Merry Christmas to You & Yours!!

 

Most of the time, I cant be arsed to go back and correct my own errors either. I took my English Higher some twenty odd years ago, so my own grammar often lets me down. I,m still very capable of critical anlysis of assonation, alliteration, oxymoron, enjambement,transferred epithet, rhyme scheme,zeugma and last but not least amongst zillions, the hyperbole of others work. :wink:
Oh, and spellifification too :lol: :wink:

 

Not even CLOSE! The only reason you can claim that God gives us rights, is because the framers of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independance) SAY so. Which... by the way... is a violation of their OWN priciple of seperation of church and state.

The Government, and not God, is the ONLY one with "standing" to define our rights to self protection. Don't believe me? Try shooting a burglar on the way OUT of your house! Without proving your life was in danger, YOU will go to jail.

God won't keep you out of jail. The Government has "defined" that you will have used unecessary and deadly force.

 

Hmm.... I must have MISSED a few of those courses. Must have been "Smokin' in the Boyz Room!"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

And since you brought it up, Smoking kills more people than guns do in this country and there is no constitutional right to Smoke. When was the last time Smoking saved a life? Heck, was there even a first time?

 

Cpl Smith's patrol was skulking through the desert landscape one night, looking for elements of UBL's army. Unknown to them, they were under the sights of many AK-47's. Suddenly, just before they were about to be wiped out, Ahmed lit up a cigarette.

Cpl Smith, being trained in the dangers of unlawful smoking, quickly alerted his troops and the terrorists were blown to smithereens!

A whole squad of American troops saved by a Marlboro! :wink:

 

[quote="golfhobo"]Not even CLOSE! The only reason you can claim that God gives us rights, is because the framers of the Constitution (and Declaration of Independance) SAY so. Which... by the way... is a violation of their OWN priciple of seperation of church and state.[/quote]

I disagree, Golf!! The U.S. Constitution stated that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free expression thereof".

In other words, there will be no government mandated religion of any kind.

We will not be a nation of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or Reformed Dyslexic Left-Handed Movementarians, or any other organized religion.

That does NOT prohibit The Government from recognizing the existence of a higher power.

The "Wall of Separation" between Church and state has been Judicially mandated, not Constitutionally mandated.

 

Textual analysis of the English language. Not a specific science mate, we all make grammatical mistakes. And those mistakes can lead to confusion in a point of law. Need I say more?
Have a good holiday Hobo, you,re a genuine bloke :wink:

 

[quote="Useless"]Useless: As always, I enjoy the debate with you. The forefathers not only declared that we would NOT be forced to be "governed" by the Church of England, but also that we would not be governed by religion in general. However, they couldn't help themselves as pertains to their belief in a God. But, they clearly intended that our government be for ALL people, regardless of religious beliefs.

Answer me this: HOW can a government "declare" that there is a God, yet INSIST that Evolution be taught in schools? Simply because the government they instituted cannot "respect any organized religion."

On the other hand, they have gone to great lengths to ALLOW and PROTECT the "free expression" of every and any religion.... including Islam.

But, when it comes to FEDERAL funding..... they cannot "respect" one religion, or the existence of religion, over any other or none.

I believe that the "wall of seperation" as you call it, was mandated by BOTH the constitution AND the judicial precedent.

For all intents and purposes.... we have set up a "secular" government. Not mandating nor prohibiting religious affiliations or beliefs. There are three branches to our govenment.... and not ONE of them is the Papacy.

This is exactly why the "tax exempt" status of churches is now under fire in Federal courts, and soon will be before the Supremes. Not because they don't deserve exempt status under their original charters, but because they have become POLITICAL.

There is no doubt that our founding fathers were of a religious sort, and FAILED to separate their own true beliefs from the words they spoke or wrote. But, their intention was clear. They were distinguishing the NEW government of the NEW WORLD from those of Europe (especially Britain) where the civilian government was subservient to the Monarchy, and the Monarchy was supposedly empowered and designated by God almighty, and therefore took their "direction" from the priests and consorts of the CHURCH.

Regardless of what these "learned" men said, and I UNDERSTAND their inclinations, what they INTENDED was a country to be governed by CIVIL law. Not religious dogma. THAT is why the constitution has had to be clarified at times by the JUDICIAL branch. To define and clarify our rights FROM religion, while protecting our free expression OF religion.

Sure, they (these primitive, God fearing humans) said that we were "endowed" BY OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. But since we cannot PROVE that there IS a creator, does it not follow that we STILL have these rights as HUMANS? That, for the successful government of ALL peoples, regardless of religious beliefs, we should be governed by CIVIL laws.... and not by religious mandates?

THIS is what our country is founded upon! THIS is our birthright. THIS is what we have fought and died for. The whole concept of the tax revolution was against "taxation without representation." i.e. we WILL NOT pay taxes to a government that does not represent ALL THE PEOPLE equally.... WITHOUT "respect" to any religious dogma, or Feudal Lords, or "ordained" Monarchies!

I will fight and die for YOUR freedom to be what you want to be. But, I will NOT risk the life of my worst enemy to fight for a government that tells me I am fighting for a religious belief! Not even GOD almighty asks that of me.

I don't have anything against God fearing Christians. But I DO have something against the so-called "Moral majority" that funnels thousands, if not millions, of dollars into my "representative" government to SUBVERT it under a religious dogmatic mandate!

I believe the Constitution is CLEAR on this matter, and I STAND on my Constitutional rights to a CIVIL government FREE of religious coersion!