jcd11235

You're missing the point, Sparky. I'm not arguing that the Amendment guarantees a collective right. I'm saying that it has not been consistently interpreted by the courts either way. Anyone can cull through the decisions to show just the ones that agree with their view. The fact of the matter is that rulings of both interpretations exist. In other words, the amendment is ambiguous. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So can individuals keep their own warships, or is it a collective right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

For the same reasons other non state employees don't have to take loyalty oaths. Why would they be treated the same? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You may want to read the the decision of the 1905 case to which I previously linked. I'm not confused by the facts. Apparently not, since judges have not yet been able to agree for over a century. True, but since it isn't consistent, the reasonable person recognizes the ambiguity. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. And here you contradict yourself. By your standard, it would seem that Jesus dishonored quite a few who came before him, such as Plato and the Buddha. You, with your condescending holier than thou attitude, have no idea how wrong you are. Christ is a path, not a destination. The path is suitable for some, but not all. Maybe one day you'll come to understand that. There is virtually no credible evidence of a historical Jesus, and none of a resurrection. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or, perhaps you are.

If you literally follow them, then yes, they are right in front of you. Buddhists do not follow the Buddha. They seek what he sought. They did not deify him, and they do not worship him. Buddhists don't dismiss the Buddha. They simply don't worship him. Yes, many others do right. Also, many others do wrong. Often they are the same people and the same actions. Both. That which can be used for good, can also be used for bad. Perhaps, but that has zero to do with science or religion. One doesn't need religion to experience love, nor does one need an understanding of science to experience love. On the other hand, love falls short sometimes. Love didn't get us to the moon. Love doesn't cure disease. Love didn't pave the way for the internet. Science did these things. What can religion do that love cannot? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Judges have been interpreting it as a collective right for over a century. I seriously doubt that is due to creative reading and re-interpretation. That highlights the fact that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. What emotion? I'm not in favour of people being allowed to own whatever weapons they want, but I do think that's what the 2nd says. Then why the refusal to acknowledge facts? Or do you just not understand the definition of ambiguous? If other people think the 2nd means something other than what you think it means, and many judges have interpreted it differently than you in the past 100 plus years, then that means it is ambiguous. That is what ambiguous means. Why is that so difficult to understand? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Agreed. But, since it was one of the rationalizations the the 2nd Amendment was not ambiguous in the example to which rushmc linked to in the post to which I replied, I felt it worthy of a response showing the absurdity of such a claim. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, but this keeps bugging me: It's not Bhudda it's Buddha. It's not bhuddaism, it's Buddhism. And, it's not bohdi tree, it's Bodhi tree. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I would not agree with that. Why would it be necessary? I dislike such actions. I can see how that could be perceived as disliking them. No, I think "verbal assault" more accurately described how I perceive it. Not at all. But when someone makes a claim for which there is scientific evidence to the contrary, I have no problem bringing up that evidence. On the other hand, what we need more of is science, so if I inadvertently motivate someone to study science, then all the better. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Christianity is a recruiting religion; they (largely, but not absolutely) seem compelled to try to convert others to their beliefs. Christianity is not an alien concept to non-Christians. They know where the can find a Christian church of most any denomination. They know where they can find nearly any translation of the Bible they might want to read. In fact many of them have read one or more of them, partially or completely, one or more times. Generally, these non-Christians don't like being verbally assaulted with a Christian recruiting spiel. Buddhists, on the other hand, don't typically try to convert anyone. Nor do they worship a deity. They don't follow Buddha, they follow the eight-fold path he established (like Jesus, there is doubt as to whether a historical Buddha actually existed). They seek a quiet mind, a beginner's mind. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why is it that only two of the federal circuits recognize it as an individual right if it is not ambiguous? The simple fact is that if the amendment were not ambiguous, it would not be open to more than one interpretation. That the majority of the federal circuits do not interpret it in the manner you claim to be the only reasonable interpretation, I can't help but to conclude that you are arguing with emotion rather than reason. There is absolutely no doubt that the amendment has been interpreted in more than one way. It is highly improbable, to the extent of being virtually impossible, that all of the judges presiding over respective precedent cases did not believe their reasoning to be justified. By the very definition of the word, the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. To argue otherwise would be like arguing that a typical summer, noon sky is blaze orange when viewed by a typical person with the naked eye. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is, indeed. The listing of the various state versions of the right to bear arms actually lends credibility to my own interpretation of the 2nd. However, some of the author's evidence does not support his assertion that the wording of the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous and provides a strict individual right to bear arms. For example: It's widely agreed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was an expanded version of a similar right in the 1688 English Bill of Rights. English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). (emphasis mine -jcd11235) "As allowed by law" and "well regulated" both seem to indicate that the government can, in fact, regulate the keeping of arms. I'm sure not everyone would agree, though. Here is a 1905 Kansas Supreme Court decision that treats the 2nd Amendment, as well as Section 4 of Kansas' Bill of Rights, as a guarantee of collective, not individual rights. In fact, it seems there has long been debate among legal minds regarding whether the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right or an individual right. Thus, the amendment is ambiguous. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So, you acknowledge that different people interpret the 2nd Amendment in different ways? Being open to more than one interpretation is the very definition of ambiguous. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I would disagree wholeheartedly, as would many others. Hence, the amendment is ambiguous (i.e. open to more than one interpretation). That so many legal minds have read the 2nd Amendment and not interpreted it in the same, or similar, ways is proof of that ambiguity. It doesn't matter which interpretation one considers to be the correct one, failure to acknowledge that other reasonable interpretations exist is simply living in denial. Actually, the questions I brought up pertain to the meaning of infringe. I am intrigued about your of that the second amendment being obsolete. Could you expound, please? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It does matter. Does the right belong to individuals, or does it belong to the people collectively, as a well regulated militia? It is not clear on this point. It is irrelevant which interpretation one believes; the fact that it is open to to such different, yet reasonable, interpretations makes the amendment ambiguous. Let's assume it is an individual right, for argument's sake. Does it imply that individuals can keep and bear any kind of arms? Does Joe Blow have the right, under Amendment 2, to build and stockpile pipe bombs or chemical weapons? Can he keep a howitzer in his backyard? How about a mortar? Is a SAW acceptable? If there is a line, where is it drawn, and by whom? Does restricting the arms to muskets preserve the right? The amendment is simply not clear as it is written. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Others interpret it differently, and also present arguments as reasonable as yours. Thus, there is ambiguity. Personally, I read it in the context of Article 1 Section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" meaning that the people have the right (and collective obligation) to maintain a militia for the nation's defense, since it was intended that Congress be forbidden from maintaining a standing Army. Hopefully the DC case will offer an interpretation and clarification. (Undoubtedly they won't interpret it as I do, since threatening the use of military force has become such a large part of our foreign policy, too often displacing diplomacy. ) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think it is important to agree or disagree with someone on the merit of their assertion rather than because of the side they are on. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Use of burn cards wouldn't change the odds, since no one sees what the burn cards are. It also doesn't matter how many people are playing, since any single player only sees his own hole cards. Any unseen cards are considered undealt. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sure it is. Why is there anything written about the well regulated militia? Why doesn't it simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? That would be unambiguous. It's actual form is ambiguous. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What does that have to do with freedom of speech or freedom of expression? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's the $64,000 question. No one knows for certain. Considering that for a given volume, a black hole has maximum entropy, it is certainly not unrealistic to consider a pre-Big Bang/Big Bounce/singularity type scenario. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It requires Leopard. Are you running 10.5 yet? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The reason there is so much debate over Amendment 2 is because it has yet to be interpreted and is worded in an ambiguous manner. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!