Re: On the Militia of the US Constitution


"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99FA94CFEA295loneweaselgml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:


"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99FA83E33BC4Floneweaselgml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:%Ly4j.7107$t31.6373@xxxxxxxxxxx


Oh, and you note how Lee, complains about argument by
deletion, but isn't it hypocritical of him given that he
regularly argues by deletion and to the point of pulling
the comments out of context in order to change the
meaning? I simply deleted at the point were anyone could
see that the argument he was making did NOT match the
subject under discussion. Specifically, the meaning of
"the people" and

"So, the word "state" will be found used in the
constitution in all the various senses, to which we have
before alluded. It sometimes means, the separate sections
of territory occupied by the political societies within
each; sometimes the particular governments established by
these societies; sometimes these societies as organized
into these particular governments; and lastly, sometimes
the people composing these political societies in their
highest sovereign capacity."

-Justice Joseph Story

Lee's inability to understand the meaning of that term.
Instead he wishes to present commentary and discussion on
the term "state" in order to attempt to divert the

"So, the word "state" will be found used in the
constitution in all the various senses, to which we have
before alluded. It sometimes means, the separate sections
of territory occupied by the political societies within
each; sometimes the particular governments established by
these societies; sometimes these societies as organized
into these particular governments; and lastly, sometimes
the people composing these political societies in their
highest sovereign capacity."

- Joseph Story, famous authority on the US Constitution

discussion. A common Lee tactic when pinned, don't
address the points made, but simply change the subject,
usually involving a question about the new subject.

You deleted what Justice Story said about "the people"
being the same as a state because it directly contradicts
your NRA sanctioned lie.

As Justice Joseph Story, a learned commentator on the
Constitution clearly explains:

"So, the word "state" will be found used in the
constitution in all the various senses, to which we have
before alluded. It sometimes means, the separate sections
of territory occupied by the political societies within
each; sometimes the particular governments established by
these societies; sometimes these societies as organized
into these particular governments; and lastly, sometimes
the people composing these political societies in their
highest sovereign capacity."

Thus the meaning of "the people" in the context of the
Second Amednment's protection of a right to keep and bear
arms, is "the people composing these political societies
in their highest sovereign capacity", which is to say "a
state"...

False primus

"premise"

Oh, anther spelling flame. That's funny, and typical of your attempt to
divert attention by irrelevencies.


leading to a false conclusion, the definition
of the state in no manner defines or established the
meaning of "the people".

Justice Story just showed you that the context determines the
meaning. "The people" is a term that has several contexts,
several meanings.

Sorry, but SCOTUS is on record as suggesting otherwise. Care to tell me why
the opinion of one man is more relevent than the highest court?

Further Justice Story did NOT say ANYTHING about the meaning of the people
in the commentary you posted, but was discussing the meaning of "state". It
was YOUR conclusion that "people" means different things, NOT that of
Justice Story.

So tell me that YOUR personal opinion is more relevent than that of SCOTUS.


In the Second Amendment, the context is set here:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free STATE..."

Bzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttt..

So sorry, but thank you for playing, and what do we have for our departing
guest?

A years supply of what a nominative absolute is.

"The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence."

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm

As such it can NOT set the context of the main clause since it has NO
grammatical connection and hence has NO impact upon the main clause.

Further, that the desire for a well regulated militia to secure a free state
in NO manner determines, fixes, modifies, or establishes the meaning of "the
people". Indeed it is to fulfil that desire that we insure that the people
have the means to carry out that desire and establish themselves as a well
regulate militia whenever, whereever, and however it becomes necessary.

"State" in this context means "the people";

So you are going to tell us that the context that establishes the meaning of
"the people" is "the people"????


it's the security
of the people that this amendment is about, not the security
of a geographical area. The geography isn't free, the people
are.

Yep, and as such THE PEOPLE, not the geography, need to have arms.

You have just confirmed that the 2nd applies to the people as individuals,
not the government, not the National Guard, but the people, because it is
the PEOPLE who need arms for their security. Further we can establish it
does mean the individual, because it will be individuals that will be
attacked, not some uniform attack against "the collective", but direct
attacks against the individual.

So when you read "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms", it means what Justice Story refers to as "the people
composing these political societies in their highest sovereign
capacity", aka a free state.

Sorry, but just because state may have this meaning, does NOT mean the
people does, nor that such a meaning is in context to the language used.

Further, let's examine your statement above.

" "the people composing these political societies in their highest sovereign
capacity", aka a free state."

Who exactly are "the people" above?

It certainly isn't the definition given otherwise you have a content free
chain of circular definition, where a term defines itself, which defines
itself, which defines itself, etc.

Somewhere the term "the people" must apply to something OUTSIDE this
definition.

Could it be, THE PEOPLE?

As in the occupants, citizens, individuals etc that comprise this "free
state"????

I think so, and so does your own definition.


So the grammar and the semantics of the Second Amendment are
one, the context provides the meaning.

Now, if the 2nd Amendment wrote
of "..the right of the state..."

Story explains how one context of "a state" is "the people
composing these political societies in their highest sovereign
capacity".

Except that as the 2nd shows, there is a well known and clearly established
difference between "the people composing these political societies in their
highest sovereign capacity" and "the people". Indeed we find "the people"
exists in your own definition. How can you define something with itself?

If the free state is the people, then how can the people be anything other
than the people?


It fits perfectly.

As long as one ignores the fact that the right belongs to the people rather
than "a free state".


then your argument might
have some merit, but since it speaks of "..the right of the
people..." then it doesn't matter how "state" is defined.
"State" isn't the subject of the right, or the protection
of that right.

Poor Lee, not only does he not know what the main clause
is, but he can't even identify the subject of the main
clause.

Free Hint for Lee: The subject of the main clause is NOT
"state".

Context gives the meaning. Point proven.

Sure it does, and you ignore the context, or invent your own to suit your
personal agenda rather than reading what is there and the meaning clearly
expressed in that language. If the FF had meant "state" or "free state", or
even "the militia" then they would have said so, instead they referred to
"...the right of the people...". Clearly something other than the "free
state" as shown by your OWN DEFINITION.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On the Militia of the US Constitution
    ... Specifically, the meaning of ... of territory occupied by the political societies within ... Thus the meaning of "the people" in the context of the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Of win64 and pets
    ... >> A multiplicity of contexts does not mean a multiplicity of meanings within ... do take the concept of a single unified meaning for granted. ... it remains relatively pointless to argue that each context ... The state of unknowability would be a case where there is "fundamental ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Basic data definitions
    ... Thank you Anith. ... > Information can be defined as, knowledge that, within a certain context, has ... > In the context of databases, schema stands for the entire or some subset of ... since data implies meaning or informational ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
  • Re: group of questions
    ... mention`s meaning being `casually say` in ... if something `runs out` can i just say naku naru? ... realize this question is lacking in context, ... printer had run out, so i used nakunaru, but i was seemingly laughed at ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: Proposal: 6NF
    ... context: in C for instance, NULL has a completely different meaning. ... Since it has a different meaning in C, there is no point bringing C into play here. ... Much of the discussion between Cimode and Dawn appears (as I read ... Just an aside, C being one of the two languages I`ve spent more than passing time with, I`ve always thought of it as a watered-down machine language. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)