On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-4, kick ray-ray wrote:
On 5/29/2017 10:06 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:19:39 -0600, Poor dumb Curt
wrote:

On 5/29/2017 11:55 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 11:25:13 -0500, !Jones wrote:

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:52:29 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
wrote:

So you are saying then that your mortgage contract can be changed at
any time, simply by the bank redefining the terms?

Any contract at all may be changed by one party simply desiring to
change the result. Is that your claim?

No, I'm saying what I actually wrote; did you bother to read?

There are two (maybe three) ways to read archaic documents:

Sorry you ****ing oaf..there is only ONE way to read "archaic"
documents. And that way is in using the meanings and customs of the
time it was written. Period. End Program. Full Stop. EnditEnditEndit.

Any other way is exactly as I stated...you wishing to change the terms
of the contract long after it was written and signed by all parties.

You want to change the 2nd Amendment? Your only..only option is to
gather the proper number of states..and Amend the Constitution yet
again. How many times has this happened before? Once. Prohibition
and its repeal. Both are clearly laid out and all were voted on by
2/3rds of the states.

Now I know you have limp wristed peckertracked "feelings"...but until
you can get another Amendment in place..you are well and truely
****ed.


I predict nothing but enmity for him from the patriot community.

Tejas doesn't cotton to gun grabbers, not even a litle.


I predict he will meet a painful and horrific ending.

As always, you're completely full of ****. That's not a prediction -
it's just another eruption from your sewer of an imagination.

--
VBG Cites? indeed $75/hr fascinating "I've not" buffoon "hold that
thought" backhoe "the list" cull 264mph "3/5/8 years street cop"
swingers "Libs" leftists

He's projecting. The most likely end for Gunner is either a truck crash due to failed brakes, or lifestyle-based septic shock.

--
Ed Huntress

On 5/30/2017 8:39 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:31:01 AM UTC-4, kick ray-ray wrote:
On 5/29/2017 10:06 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:19:39 -0600, Poor dumb Curt
wrote:

On 5/29/2017 11:55 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 29 May 2017 11:25:13 -0500, !Jones wrote:

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 29 May 2017 07:52:29 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Gunner Asch
wrote:

So you are saying then that your mortgage contract can be changed at
any time, simply by the bank redefining the terms?

Any contract at all may be changed by one party simply desiring to
change the result. Is that your claim?

No, I'm saying what I actually wrote; did you bother to read?

There are two (maybe three) ways to read archaic documents:

Sorry you ****ing oaf..there is only ONE way to read "archaic"
documents. And that way is in using the meanings and customs of the
time it was written. Period. End Program. Full Stop. EnditEnditEndit.

Any other way is exactly as I stated...you wishing to change the terms
of the contract long after it was written and signed by all parties.

You want to change the 2nd Amendment? Your only..only option is to
gather the proper number of states..and Amend the Constitution yet
again. How many times has this happened before? Once. Prohibition
and its repeal. Both are clearly laid out and all were voted on by
2/3rds of the states.

Now I know you have limp wristed peckertracked "feelings"...but until
you can get another Amendment in place..you are well and truely
****ed.


I predict nothing but enmity for him from the patriot community.

Tejas doesn't cotton to gun grabbers, not even a litle.


I predict he will meet a painful and horrific ending.

As always, you're completely full of ****. That's not a prediction -
it's just another eruption from your sewer of an imagination.

--
VBG Cites? indeed $75/hr fascinating "I've not" buffoon "hold that
thought" backhoe "the list" cull 264mph "3/5/8 years street cop"
swingers "Libs" leftists

He's projecting. The most likely end for Gunner is either a truck crash due to failed brakes, or lifestyle-based septic shock.

A tough call. Mark Wieber seems bound and determined not to live a long
and fulfilled life. He repeatedly states that he likes living in Taft,
CA, a dying town, often in the same post in which he *says* that Taft is
a dying town. He lives hand-to-mouth (does he even wash his hands?) in
a squalid dump with a defective septic system and a herd of stray dogs
whose upkeep he can't afford. He smokes, he guzzles gallons of
health-destroying beverages, he has no natural teeth, he has heart
disease, he's overweight, he drives vehicles of dubious safety. I think
he knows he's a loser nearing the end of the line, and he doesn't care.
He's unable or unwilling - is there much difference? - to make even the
most basic life changes that could potentially yield huge dividends.
And let's not forget that he just can't seem to stop with the threats,
and some day Donny Youngblood is going to reel him in on it.


--
VBG Cites? indeed $75/hr fascinating "I've not" buffoon "hold that
thought" backhoe "the list" cull 264mph "3/5/8 years street cop"
swingers "Libs" leftists

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-4, !Jones wrote:
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:23:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza
wrote:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory
clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter
grammatically, but rather announces a purpose [for the *amendment*]."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The amendment does not create the right. The amendment *secures* the
right. The right precedes the amendment, both historically and
philosophically. The right does not, in any way, depend on the amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent natural right.

Oh, grief! A "prefatory clause"??? What in the **** is a "prefatory
clause", please? The term is an entirely fabricated idea.

Look up "prefatory." Then look up "clause." Then put the two together.

In the
first place: "A well regulated militia" is a noun phrase and is in no
way shape or form a "clause" of *any* kind.

Right. It is a noun phrase. "Being necessary [to the security of a free state]" is a participial phrase. Together, they make up a nominative absolute construction -- a type of phrase that usually consists of a noun or noun phrase and a participial phrase.

In grammar, that is not a clause [because it has no predicate]. In legal terminology, it is:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clause


Try entering the search term ["prefatory clause" -amendment] and see
what you get. Yes, it's an obscure legal term found in contract law,
but normal people use it about as often as they say "didactic" in
conversation. I predict you'll find one or two hits out of thousands
where the subject isn't 2A.

Scalia used it in the legal sense, which is apparent to any non-lawyer by each word's common meaning.


It simply isn't a clause; it's an article, an adverb, an adjective,
and a noun... you don't have a *clause* until you also have a verb.
"A well regulated militia" is a noun phrase. A writer from Cornell
should know the definition of a "clause".

A lawyer from Cornell would know that a "clause," in legal terms, can be any part(s) of speech. It's applied to any provision in a contract, a law, a treaty, etc.


For some reason, the gun discussion causes people to drop drastically
in IQ.

That's true.


It must have a noun and it must have a verb; failing that, it isn't a
clause.

Ah, yeah it is, to a lawyer. Lawyers parse the sentence more often than grammarians. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Jones

P.S.: It isn't an "inherent natural right", either, but let's take
them one at a time.