The Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia.
The modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century.
opinion:
The 2nd Amendment spells out your duty to the State.
A novel interpertation of the Bill or RIGHTS which was passed to further list protections of individual rights from the government which many thought not needed as the government was limited to the powers ennumerated in the Constitution.
This is what happens when people read the language of a law without the context in which it was written and passed.
I do not think this would get you a passing grade at any government or Constitutional law course anywhere...well maybe Harvard.
Robert Helm wrote: A novel interpertation of the Bill or RIGHTS which was passed to further list protections of individual rights from the government which many thought not needed as the government was limited to the powers ennumerated in the Constitution.
This is what happens when people read the language of a law without the context in which it was written and passed.
I do not think this would get you a passing grade at any government or Constitutional law course anywhere...well maybe Harvard.
Robert Helm wrote: I do not think this would get you a passing grade at any government or Constitutional law course anywhere...well maybe Harvard.
It's pretty well reviewed
Reviews
"Impressive and illuminating."--Cass R. Sunstein, The New Republic
"This book can help provide much-needed context and background in light of the national debate over gun control, regardless of your personal views on the right to bear arms."--The Vermont Bar Journal
"This intelligent, carefully rendered history of gun policy in the United States...is challenging but essential reading for scholars, specialized undergraduates, and readers interested in law, criminal justice, and public affairs."--Library Journal
"If proof were still needed that the study of the Second Amendment remains a fruitful source of inquiry, Saul Cornell's new book provides it. Crisply written and vigorously argued, A Well-Regulated Militia advances an often hackneyed debate by looking beyond the original concerns of the Revolutionary era. Cornell concisely demonstrates why so many of the contemporary fictions swirling around the meaning of this vexed clause depart from its real history."--Jack Rakove, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Original Meanings
"Saul Cornell provides a wonderful, original treatment of a much discussed subject. Based on a meticulous review of American history, Cornell shows that both sides of the debate over the Second Amendment are mistaken. This is a must-read."--Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke University School of Law
"Jettisoning the rancorous partisanship and historical distortions of both advocates and opponents of gun control, Cornell recovers the lost civic dimension of the constitutional right to bear arms. The point of departure for any future, historically-informed discussion of this most controversial amendment, A Well-Regulated Militia clears the way for fresh and constructive thinking about the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership in America today."--Peter S. Onuf, author of Jefferson's Empire: The Language of American Nationhood
"With this book Saul Cornell establishes himself as a leading interpreter of the Second Amendment, and teaches us valuable lessons not only about gun control and the militia, but about the nature of American republican government itself."--Stephen Presser, Northwestern University School of Law
"A provocative alternative in the debate over the historical meaning of the Second Amendment. Anyone interested in how the right to bear arms was thought about in the early republic will need to take this book into account."--Keith E. Whittington, author of Constitutional Interpretation
"A Well-Regulated Militia offers a much-needed examination of the varied notions of the right to bear arms that have prevailed at different moments in the history of the United States. Perhaps even more important, Cornell's study challenges the static conception that often dominates public discussion of this particular constitutional provision. By tracing the competing influences of the civic, states'-rights, individual-rights, and collective-rights theories of the role of arms in American society, Cornell reveals the often overlooked republican pairing of rights and duties that defined late-eighteenth-century gun ownership."--H-Net
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
kickfight wrote:
Interesting argument and very worthy of consideration.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Regardless, the amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say the right for every citizen to join the guard if they want to shoot.
kickfight wrote: Interesting argument and very worthy of consideration.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Pinups4 wrote: Regardless, the amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms. It does not say the right for every citizen to join the guard if they want to shoot.
Yes, but it provides an explicit context for keeping and bearing those arms: as necessary for the security of a free state, and not just for sport or to mitigate certain personal neuroses.
kickfight wrote: This entirely amateur opinion on an obviously poorly-understood subject is noted as such.
sublime LightWorks wrote: As is yours. You would be laughed out of a court of law with your opinion as it ignores all prior case law that has been settled on this matter.
And your opinion is even more amateurish and laughable, but that, I am sure, surprises no-one here.
sublime LightWorks wrote: I would pay good money to see you argue this in front of an appeals court. The video would go viral in 60 seconds.
It's true what they say, then. Easily parted, some are from their money.
sublime LightWorks wrote: As is yours. You would be laughed out of a court of law with your opinion as it ignores all prior case law that has been settled on this matter.
I would pay good money to see you argue this in front of an appeals court. The video would go viral in 60 seconds.
digital Artform wrote: Activist judges.
Rank amateurs demonstrating their ignorance.
Prior case law on a given matter can be superseded and made obsolete at any time by a subsequent decision on that matter. This is especially true when it comes to Constitutional matters, which SCOTUS may (one would even argue, *must*) review as often as is necessary. That's how it works.
While not unmindful of the desirability of its adhering to former decisions of constitutional questions, this Court is not constrained to follow a previous decision which, upon reexamination, is believed erroneous, particularly one which involves the application of a constitutional principle, rather than an interpretation of the Constitution to evolve the principle itself.
—Smith v. Allwright
"Impressive and illuminating."--Cass R. Sunstein, The New Republic
It is well reviewed, but that depends on the reviewer right? Wonder what Scalia, Roberts, Bork,David Limbaugh, National Review etc would think.
Lets assume you are right that it is the obligation of the citizen to the state, and it very well may be but I would say under the enumerated power to raise an Army and Navy rather than the Bill of Rights (odd they did not call it the Bill of Rights and One Obligation?)
If it is an obligation then some liberal Senator, like say DiFi should immediately introduce legislation that all adults must purchase a weapon suitable for military use and any and all State Regulations prohibiting such ownership are null and void. We would be like the Swiss, they are European and as such of course to be emulated. Since this weapon must be of military grade by current standards of our military it should be an automatic weapon of the cal used by our military. Since this is an obligation of citizenship then this purchase, upkeep and repairs should be tax deductable as would be the purchase of ammo to accuire and maintain the proficiency needed to meet military standards. I think that would be a gun law I could support. Of course we would need to donate surplus military weapons to the poor who could not afford to buy them.
Robert Helm wrote: If it is an obligation then some liberal Senator, like say DiFi should immediately introduce legislation that all adults must purchase a weapon suitable for military use and any and all State Regulations prohibiting such ownership are null and void. We would be like the Swiss, they are European and as such of course to be emulated. Since this weapon must be of military grade by current standards of our military it should be an automatic weapon of the cal used by our military. Since this is an obligation of citizenship then this purchase, upkeep and repairs should be tax deductable as would be the purchase of ammo to accuire and maintain the proficiency needed to meet military standards. I think that would be a gun law I could support. Of course we would need to donate surplus military weapons to the poor who could not afford to buy them.
As long as it adheres to the necessity of maintaining the security of a free state, sure... why not?
If it's used for any other reason, there should certainly be extremely strict penalties applied, including permanent disenfranchisement from such obligation.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
kickfight wrote:
kickfight wrote: Interesting argument and very worthy of consideration.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Yes, but it provides an explicit context for keeping and bearing those arms: as necessary for the security of a free state, and not just for sport or to mitigate certain personal neuroses.
Actually it doesn't. No requirement for being in a militia is in the law...no definition or limitation on'the right of the people' or qualifications on that right to those who serve the state.
Again, in the context of the founder' lives. There is no way they would subjugate individual rights to that of the state
Actually, it does. The context is explicit in the text itself.
Pinups4 wrote: No requirement for being in a militia is in the law...no definition or limitation on'the right of the people' or qualifications on that right to those who serve the state.
Nobody is saying there is a requirement to be in a militia. The text clearly states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and THAT is why citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms.
Pinups4 wrote: Again, in the context of the founder' lives. There is no way they would subjugate individual rights to that of the state
The state is explicitly invoked in the text. The necessity relates specifically to securing the freedom of the state. THAT is THE purpose for citizens keeping and bearing arms.
What is the specific right in question? To keep and bear arms.
In what specific context? In the specific context of a well-regulated militia.
What is the specific need for a well-regulated militia? For the security of a free state.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
Then the statement would be "the right to bear arms in support of the state shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say that
And since most of the founders were adamant that the state should be revolted against if it got too invasive or oppressive. They WOULD NOT put arms only in the hands that would be revolted against. It makes no sense to assume otherwise.
The right OF THE INDIVIDUAL shall not be infringed
Pinups4 wrote: Then the statement would be "the right to bear arms in support of the state shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say that
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
It clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
It doesn't say "just because" or "for whatever reason you choose" or "for hunting" or "for sport".
The purpose of keeping and bearing arms IS EXPLICIT IN THE TEXT and it relates explicitly to the state, to keep the state free.
Pinups4 wrote: And since most of the founders were adamant that the state should be revolted against if it got too invasive or oppressive. They WOULD NOT put arms only in the hands that would be revolted against. It makes no sense to assume otherwise.
The right OF THE INDIVIDUAL shall not be infringed
It says NOTHING of "the individual". IT SAYS "THE PEOPLE". And it specifically states why THE PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms: for the security of a free state.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
kickfight wrote:
Pinups4 wrote: Then the statement would be "the right to bear arms in support of the state shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say that
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
It clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.
It doesn't say "just because" or "for whatever reason you choose" or "for hunting" or "for sport".
The purpose of keeping and bearing arms IS EXPLICIT IN THE TEXT and it relates explicitly to the state.
Unfortunately, Herr Comrafe
It says NOTHING of "the individual". IT SAYS "THE PEOPLE". And it specifically states why THE PEOPLE shall have the right to keep and bear arms: for the security of a free state.
Umm...ok. just basic grammar, and 200 years of laws and supreme court opinions refute your position but....ok
Pinups4 wrote: Umm...ok. just basic grammar, and 200 years of laws and supreme court opinions refute your position but....ok
Ummm, OK... all it takes is basic reading comprehension skills, and, for those clearly without such skills, once again:
While not unmindful of the desirability of its adhering to former decisions of constitutional questions, this Court is not constrained to follow a previous decision which, upon reexamination, is believed erroneous, particularly one which involves the application of a constitutional principle, rather than an interpretation of the Constitution to evolve the principle itself.
—Smith v. Allwright
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
And what Court decision supports your position on the matter?
What writings of the authors of the document illustrate they would welcome such absolute power be given to the state?
Where does it require that guns only be in the hands of those in a state militia?
You realize that private organizations can be militiae also, yes?
What laws passed support limiting arms ownership to state run militiae?
In short, besides an unusual application of grammar rules (a statement in the first part negates a meaning of the second part), where is the basis of your logic?
Do any Constitutional scholars support your position? Any Historians of note?
Aside from promoting an excellent exchange with Pinups4, whose well-stated arguments are certainly in keeping with current interpretation of the 2nd, it sure seems that this discussion is causing the expected confusion, knee-jerk whining and weakling butthurt in some of the most reliably predictable amongst SB's know-nothing Usual Suspects, as well!
Here is the Militia Act of 1792: it required those between 18 and 45 to own, at their expense, a musket and ammunition. The unorganized militia still is every able body person between the ages of 18-45 and can be called up by your governor or the president. You're still expect to bring what you have.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Bill Bates wrote: I have to agree somewhat with the OP.
Here is the Militia Act of 1792: it required those between 18 and 45 to own, at their expense, a musket and ammunition. The unorganized militia still is every able body person between the ages of 18-45 and can be called up by your governor or the president. You're still expect to bring what you have.
So, yes the second amendment does have an element of civic duty for the populace.
The Militia Acts of 1792 - both the 1st and 2nd one were repealed. The current militia act is 100 years old and is known as the Dick Act or the Militia Act of 1903. The Militia Acts of 1972 are unconstitutional...
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
kickfight wrote:
Pinups4 wrote: And what Court decision supports your position on the matter?
None so far. Refer back to SCOTUS in Smith v. Allwright.
"none so far" ..in 225 years, yet your Consititutional law training supercedes that of the best minds of the last two centuries why?
and I ask again, what in the Founders' documents supports your position?
For that matter, what Grammar scholar has chosen to parse this sentence or any similar one in the way you describe?
Or is this all in your head, trying to prove the unproven so it fits your definition of reality?
Pinups4 wrote: What writings of the authors of the document illustrate they would welcome such absolute power be given to the state?
On what do you base your opinion that this interpretation gives "absolute power" to the state?
Since the state would be the only ones with the guns, if arms were restricted to militiae which serve the state, then the absolute power of firearms would be similarly limited, and since firearms result in absolute power in most civil struggles and nations and warlords and tribes globally - it would follow that HE WITH THE ARMS MAKES THE RULES. which means the state gets absolute power. but then again, these are just your words I'm using. Nothing scholarly there.
Pinups4 wrote: Where does it require that guns only be in the hands of those in a state militia?
That is not an aspect of the discussion at all. From where do you get this opinion?
you have said the 2nd amendment allows guns ONLY in support of a "free state " via a "militia". So, my opinion is based on your words. Would you like me to scroll up and repeat them verbatim, or can you handle that?
Pinups4 wrote: You realize that private organizations can be militiae also, yes?
Does the 2nd Amendment say any such thing specifically? It offers a right to the people.
I'm sorry, I am going only by 225 years of practice, law and reality. Nothing to compare to your opinion.
I am myself a member of a private militia. My father is a member of the "Ancient and Honorables" - a bullshit (not fighting trained...a nice luncheon and drinking group) but legal militia made up of older white men that want to feel good about themselves - but are a registered and approved militia organization recognized in alot of places..not just the US
Pinups4 wrote: What laws passed support limiting arms ownership to state run militiae?
That is not an aspect of the discussion at all. From where do you get this opinion?
simply your words. nothing, in reality.[/i]
Pinups4 wrote: In short, besides an unusual application of grammar rules
Incorrect.
[b]could you prove I'm incorrect?
Since you're not a certified teacher in Grammar, (that I'm aware of) and have no Constitutional Scholarship (that I'm aware of), please forgive me if i don't call you Professor.
Pinups4 wrote: (a statement in the first part negates a meaning of the second part),
Incorrect again.
could you prove I'm incorrect?
Since you're not a certified teacher in Grammar, (that I'm aware of) and have no Constitutional Scholarship (that I'm aware of), please forgive me if i don't call you Professor.
It has been explained already. I guess you missed it
if by explained, you mean repeated more vaguely and with less basis - then no, i didn't miss it.
if you meant proven, supported by fact or scholarly opinion or experienced logic or legal precendent...then yes, please point me to where you made such statements.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
Art of CIP wrote:
The Militia Acts of 1792 - both the 1st and 2nd one were repealed. The current militia act is 100 years old and is known as the Dick Act or the Militia Act of 1903. The Militia Acts of 1972 are unconstitutional...
Why was it voted unconstitutional? because it required people to buy something whether they wanted to or not? I'm not looking for a fight, just facts. This may tie into another interesting thread/debate.
Pinups4 wrote: "none so far" ..in 225 years, yet your Consititutional law training supercedes that of the best minds of the last two centuries why?
Where do you get that I have "Consititutional" law training? Do you have such training? Is that a requirement for discussion?
Pinups4 wrote: and I ask again, what in the Founders' documents supports your position?
Asked and answered.
Pinups4 wrote: For that matter, what Grammar scholar has chosen to parse this sentence or any similar one in the way you describe?
What Grammar scholar has chosen to parse the sentence or any similar in the manner you describe?
Pinups4 wrote: Or is this all in your head, trying to prove the unproven so it fits your definition of reality?
It's an interpretation of the 2nd, one that some folks appear to agree with.
Pinups4 wrote: Since the state would be the only ones with the guns
FAIL. The state would not be the only ones with guns. Where did you get this interpretation from?
Pinups4 wrote: you have said the 2nd amendment allows guns ONLY in support of a "free state " via a "militia". So, my opinion is based on your words.
No, it's not. Your opinion is apparently based on your misunderstanding.
Where did you misunderstand, to the extent that you made that error?
Pinups4 wrote: I'm sorry, I am going only by 225 years of practice, law and reality. Nothing to compare to your opinion.
I am myself a member of a private militia. My father is a member of the "Ancient and Honorables" - a bullshit (not fighting trained...a nice luncheon and drinking group) but legal militia made up of older white men that want to feel good about themselves - but are a registered and approved militia organization recognized in alot of places..not just the US
That's fascinating, and yet does not answer my question at all. It's 100% avoidance of my question.
Pinups4 wrote: simply your words. nothing, in reality.
But I never said any such thing. I never said anything about "state-run militae". Did you make another mistake, like the mistake you made above?
Pinups4 wrote: could you prove I'm incorrect?
Since you're not a certified teacher in Grammar, (that I'm aware of) and have no Constitutional Scholarship (that I'm aware of), please forgive me if i don't call you Professor.
Not my burden of proof. YOU have to back up your statement that there is "grammatical error" in my interpretation.
I await your scholarly dissertation on the matter.
Pinups4 wrote: could you prove I'm incorrect?
Since you're not a certified teacher in Grammar, (that I'm aware of) and have no Constitutional Scholarship (that I'm aware of), please forgive me if i don't call you Professor.
Not my burden of proof. YOU have to back up your statement that there is "grammatical error" in my interpretation.
I await your scholarly dissertation on the matter.
Pinups4 wrote: f by explained, you mean repeated more vaguely and with less basis - then no, i didn't miss it.
Then I guess you misunderstood that as well. Wow, you clearly misunderstand A LOT, based on the errors you've made so far.
Pinups4 wrote: if you meant proven, supported by fact or scholarly opinion or experienced logic or legal precendent...then yes, please point me to where you made such statements.
All that is needed is to review the statements... for comprehension, this time please.
Art of CIP
Posts: 21,234
Long Beach, California, US
Pinups4 wrote:
Why was it voted unconstitutional? because it required people to buy something whether they wanted to or not? I'm not looking for a fight, just facts. This may tie into another interesting thread/debate.
For the exact same reason the 3/5 rule was deemed unconstitutional. It should be noted that after the militia acts of 1792, multiple militia militia acts were passed. By the time the Dick Act was passed in 1903 - the 14th and 15th amendments had pretty much nullified the Militia Acts of 1792. Even in 1792 - those militia acts contradicted themselves when placed against the constitution.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
Art of CIP wrote: For the exact same reason the 3/5 rule was deemed unconstitutional. It should be noted that after the militia acts of 1792, multiple militia militia acts were passed. By the time the Dick Act was passed in 1903 - the 14th and 15th amendments had pretty much nullified the Militia Acts of 1792. Even in 1792 - those militia acts contradicted themselves when placed against the constitution.
OK. I also googled it. Thanks.
Found out that it being unconstitutional can't stand in opposition to the Obamacare "make people buy something" mandate. Though i see a hole in the Obamacare mandate constitutionally - it isn't precicely this one.
please let's NOT mix O-care into this thread. it's been broken enough.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
kickfight wrote:
Pinups4 wrote: "none so far" ..in 225 years, yet your Consititutional law training supercedes that of the best minds of the last two centuries why?
Where do you get that I have "Consititutional" law training? Do you have such training? Is that a requirement for discussion?
Pinups4 wrote: and I ask again, what in the Founders' documents supports your position?
Asked and answered.
Pinups4 wrote: For that matter, what Grammar scholar has chosen to parse this sentence or any similar one in the way you describe?
What Grammar scholar has chosen to parse the sentence or any similar in the manner you describe?
Pinups4 wrote: Or is this all in your head, trying to prove the unproven so it fits your definition of reality?
It's an interpretation of the 2nd, one that some folks appear to agree with.
Pinups4 wrote: Since the state would be the only ones with the guns
FAIL. The state would not be the only ones with guns. Where did you get this interpretation from?
Pinups4 wrote: you have said the 2nd amendment allows guns ONLY in support of a "free state " via a "militia". So, my opinion is based on your words.
No, it's not. Your opinion is apparently based on your misunderstanding.
Where did you misunderstand, to the extent that you made that error?
Pinups4 wrote: I'm sorry, I am going only by 225 years of practice, law and reality. Nothing to compare to your opinion.
I am myself a member of a private militia. My father is a member of the "Ancient and Honorables" - a bullshit (not fighting trained...a nice luncheon and drinking group) but legal militia made up of older white men that want to feel good about themselves - but are a registered and approved militia organization recognized in alot of places..not just the US
That's fascinating, and yet does not answer my question at all. It's 100% avoidance of my question.
Pinups4 wrote: simply your words. nothing, in reality.
But I never said any such thing. I never said anything about "state-run militae". Did you make another mistake, like the mistake you made above?
Pinups4 wrote: could you prove I'm incorrect?
Since you're not a certified teacher in Grammar, (that I'm aware of) and have no Constitutional Scholarship (that I'm aware of), please forgive me if i don't call you Professor.
Not my burden of proof. YOU have to back up your statement that there is "grammatical error" in my interpretation.
I await your scholarly dissertation on the matter.
Pinups4 wrote: could you prove I'm incorrect?
Since you're not a certified teacher in Grammar, (that I'm aware of) and have no Constitutional Scholarship (that I'm aware of), please forgive me if i don't call you Professor.
Not my burden of proof. YOU have to back up your statement that there is "grammatical error" in my interpretation.
I await your scholarly dissertation on the matter.
Pinups4 wrote: f by explained, you mean repeated more vaguely and with less basis - then no, i didn't miss it.
Then I guess you misunderstood that as well. Wow, you clearly misunderstand A LOT, based on the errors you've made so far.
All that is needed is to review the statements... for comprehension, this time please.
i tire of this circle with you. 225 years of precedent, and all the scholarly and court decisions stand on my side of reading. As do every Federalist and Founding document (including the Constitution and Declaration) that I can name.
In short, I won't engage you any further...since you have no ammunition with which to make it a fair fight...since it's all in service of a free state militia.
Pinups4 wrote: i tire of this circle with you. 225 years of precedent, and all the scholarly and court decisions stand on my side of reading. As do every Federalist and Founding document (including the Constitution and Declaration) that I can name.
In short, I won't engage you any further...since you have no ammunition with which to make it a fair fight...since it's all in service of a free state militia.
Sorry to see you simply capitulate, and express your surrender in this manner. You did a good job of defending the status quo interpretation of the 2nd, but failed miserably at showing why the alternative interpretation is unworthy.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,018
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
kickfight wrote:
Sorry to see you simply capitulate like this. You did a good job of defending the status quo interpretation of the 2nd, but failed miserably at showing why the alternative interpretation is unworthy.
Oh well. At least you tried!
Unfortunately, you failed so miserably at giving any backup to your position, it is simply impossible to debate.
I do not see the Grammatical rules in any reference I have consulted which present that a statement before a comma restricts an absolute ("the right shall not be infringed" in the second part. Without that position, your entire intrepretation becomes invalid and wasted.
If you someday find the information to demonstrate that your interpretation has legitimacy (like...that it follows any grammatical rules or practice) please feel free to present those.
as I invited before, if you can show me where in this thread you made these points of fact, I'm willing to read them. Without that, I'm simply chasing my own tail - a war of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Pinups4 wrote: If you someday find the information to demonstrate that your interpretation has legitimacy (like...that it follows any grammatical rules or practice) please feel free to present those.
A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the road to the school shall not be blocked.
| 
| 
| edu