Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:



Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the
Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the
copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.


Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.


But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that. The right of the people to
bear arms flows from the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There is
a hierarchy here in the flow and ordering of the statements concerning
how and why the rights are bestowed by the constitution.

The "militia" consisted of all able bodied men. It was not limited to a
government-sponsored military force.

willshak wrote:
on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.

Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.


G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.


Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.


Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!

Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

on 9/14/2007 6:52 PM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:


on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"willshak" wrote in message


My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.


Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.



G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.



Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.



Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!


Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

I even had the lyric wrong. It's "Life could be a dream".

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.


errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Who has turned out to be an everlasting beauty and a glam gran to boot :-)

Dave

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave


Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave


Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

Manny, many thanks for that.

Dave

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms
shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Not necessarily. Nominative absolute sentences are just as (un)common today
as they were in the latter part of the 18th century. Yes, I researched it,
around 20 years ago.

And the "because" is just one possible "in other words" for such a
nominative absolute. The accurate meaning of the others would produce an
awkward sentence -- which is why the nominative absolute is used from time
to time in literature. You will not see it used in legal documents today
because of the ambiguity.

I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

--
Ed Huntress

willshak wrote:
on 9/14/2007 6:52 PM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Back in the 50's there was a singing group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I
don't know if that was by the Crew Cuts

"Sh-Boom"

Right!

Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

I even had the lyric wrong. It's "Life could be a dream".


Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmEGEmUBJUI

You're welcome.

"My heros have always killed cowboys".

Comanche

But not enough to count anywhere but
my oen heart...


Richard

Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

Actually, I'd love that. I saw these constructs so often in my early
reading that they became ingrained; if I've missed something I wanna know.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:44:17 -0700, Gunner
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 Dave wrote:

Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

Do the Ojibwa have any casinos?

I know the Pechangas are tossing people out of the tribe left and
right - even with impeccable lineage research that goes back a few
hundred years - just because they didn't vote the right way on casino
related tribal elections. Cutting off casino profit participation
checks, throwing them out of schools and hospitals, out of houses on
tribal land, canceling health insurance...

-- Bruce --

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:51:51 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:54:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

So it was the Spanish given smallpox infected blankets to the
Indians
and paying bounties on scalps?
By the time anybody started giving "smallpox infected blankets" to the
Indians the indigenous population had already been decimated.


Hardly so.

Gunner

Probably so. The original meaning of "decimated" was "one in ten".
Between the Spaniards' genocide and European diseases, a 10% decline
between 1492 and the late 1800 isn't unlikely.

David

The British were gone before 1800.

Gunner

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)


German, Finn and Black Irish.

Gunner

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:10:28 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.


errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Who has turned out to be an everlasting beauty and a glam gran to boot :-)

Dave


Really? I thought she had fallen though a storm drain grill and had
washed out to sea?

Gunner

"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message

How big would the manual have to be to tell that retard all the things he
should not use his lawnmower for.
"Do not cut your finger nails with this device"
"Do not cut your hair with this device"
"This is not an extractor fan"

I teach HS wood shop. While most of my kids are pretty good, some are
dumber than a bucket of rocks. A few years back (thank God it was in
another teacher's class, not mine) one boy, an emo, had long fingernails.
He thought it would be "cool" to cut a notch in his nail on his pointer
finger, right hand. Sort of like a snakes tongue. He decided to use the
big Powermatic band saw. He ended up splitting his finger right up to the
first joint. Dumb.

Last year I caught two who were doing something almost as dumb. Anothe kid
was turning a handle for a gavel out of walnut. The piece broke and he
through the parts in the scrap bucket and started over. Two of my more
"genius" kids saw the piece and thought it would make a pretty ornate hash
pipe. The waited until they thought I wasn't looking and the one was
holding the handle vertically in his hands while the other was preparing to
bore through it with the drill press. Fortunately I caught them before they
turned on the DP.

If you ever work in a HS shop, believe me, you will soon learn the meaning
of stupid!

Glen

"Glen" wrote in message
...

"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message

How big would the manual have to be to tell that retard all the things he
should not use his lawnmower for.
"Do not cut your finger nails with this device"
"Do not cut your hair with this device"
"This is not an extractor fan"

I teach HS wood shop. While most of my kids are pretty good, some are
dumber than a bucket of rocks. A few years back (thank God it was in
another teacher's class, not mine) one boy, an emo, had long fingernails.
He thought it would be "cool" to cut a notch in his nail on his pointer
finger, right hand. Sort of like a snakes tongue. He decided to use the
big Powermatic band saw. He ended up splitting his finger right up to the
first joint. Dumb.

Last year I caught two who were doing something almost as dumb. Anothe
kid was turning a handle for a gavel out of walnut. The piece broke and
he through the parts in the scrap bucket and started over. Two of my more
"genius" kids saw the piece and thought it would make a pretty ornate hash
pipe. The waited until they thought I wasn't looking and the one was
holding the handle vertically in his hands while the other was preparing
to bore through it with the drill press. Fortunately I caught them before
they turned on the DP.

If you ever work in a HS shop, believe me, you will soon learn the meaning
of stupid!



It goes with youth. We were all there at some point - thought we knew
better, or thought we knew it all. It's a rite of passage thing. That's
why experienced people mentor inexperienced people. My only question is why
the experienced people talk about the inexperienced ones as if it's some
surprise, or as if it's something unique. You really expected something
different/smarter out of people at this stage of life?

--

-Mike-

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)


German, Finn and Black Irish.

Yeah, they used to set fire to the Irish around here, too. g

--
Ed Huntress

on 9/15/2007 5:21 AM Gunner said the following:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)



German, Finn and Black Irish.

Gunner

I have two of yours, but I don't know what Black Irish is.
Mine is N Ireland Catholic.
The other German.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"willshak" wrote in message

I have two of yours, but I don't know what Black Irish is.
Mine is N Ireland Catholic.
The other German.

Seems to be some question as to what it is
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a930730.html
Many years ago my grandmother told me that her grandfather's ethnicity was
"Black Irish." Recently I've heard three different explanations concerning
the origin of the term:

(1) It refers to a mixture of Irish and Spanish blood dating from the time
of the Spanish Armada, when many shipwrecked Spanish sailors were washed up
on the Irish coastline and wound up staying.

(2) It refers to a mixture of Irish and eastern European blood.

(3) It refers to a mixture of Irish and Italian blood from the time of the
Roman Empire.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:59:47 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
John Rumm writes:

You know its a bad day when you fall off a scaffold and "Carpenter
fell from a 2nd floor scaffold onto a running table saw, lost most of
his hand."

If I fell from a second floor scaffold onto a running table saw and
the news said "lost most of his hand", I'd consider myself to have
gotten off very lucky.

I somehow doubt that any of us would really feel lucky in such an event.

Uh, yeah, like, not fall off the scaffold in the first place? Acrophobia
can be pretty handy sometimes. ;-)

("Yeah, you get me a cherry picker, and I'll go up there again. Oh, and
let me double-check my harness...") ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:59:24 +0000, Bill wrote:
In message , Edwin
Pawlowski writes

That bring sup another point. My workshop is in a detached garage. I
usually work by myself, but I always take either the portable phone or my
cell phone.
So when you are knocked unconscious either by a blow or by shock you can
phone for help?

May be better to rig up a timed loan worker system that sends an alarm,
i.e. if you don't reset it at a predetermined time it will alarm. The
timing could depend on the severity of the expected injuries.

How about a dead-man switch like they have on Ski-doo type things? There's
a short lanyard around your wrist, and you have to plug in the little plug
to make the machine go. If it knocks you back (or out!), the plug pulls
out of the socket, and it shuts down the whole shop, rings the alarm, and
calls the paramedics. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:00:07 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Bill :

Bl**dy spell checkers, I really should look at what I type.

Lone

A spelling checker would not make much difference there, both
are valid words.

Or did you do some kind of typo and you are stuck with a
spelling checker which auto-corrects your typos without asking you what
you really meant to say?

Well, there are spelling checkers, but can you imagine trying to write
an "is this the right word here" checker? ;-)

I just type so fast that I have time to proofread before I hit "send",
most of the time. And I usually catch most of the other mistrakes[SIC] an
ohnosecond _after_ hitting "send". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:30:22 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
Ed Huntress wrote:

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

You SURE don't want to go into your shop without pants. ;-)

Oh, jeez, did you have to say that? I'm not going anywhere near my lathe for
a while now...

Lathe? Pants? Man, that's one LOW lathe! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:34:29 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message
"Ed Huntress" wrote

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a deputy sheriff. He used to have
....
He said if he retires or takes up another line of work, he might grow
some hair agin. But as long as he is a law enforcement officer, he will
go with a buzz cut.

'Sounds wise to me. When I hear these stories I have to wonder why some
do-gooder group hasn't done PSAs on television showing how your scalp
can get peeled off if your hair is long and it gets caught in something.

Spiro Agnew would have liked those.

I wear my hair long, but if I'm going to be working around moving
machinery, I tie it back and don't dangle it in moving parts.

And I'm very unlikely to get into an altercation with an intoxicated
woman, so I'm fairly safe in that respect. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:37:34 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
ameijers wrote:
....
pony tail as a teenager, but am back to above-the collar now. The
current buzz-cut fad, presumably war-inspired, leaves me cold.

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war.

It has _everything_ to do with war. Militaries have regulated hair length
and beard length (or even a mandatory clean shave) for centuries, because
even the Phoenicians knew what a convenient hand-hold either one is.

I saw a guy in the NFL get pulled down by his hair, and it wasn't a foul,
because the defender hadn't grabbed his face mask, horse-collared him, or
clotheslined him, but pulled him down by his own body part, as if he'd had
his arm or something. It was the guy's hair, but the NFL ruled that if
he's stupid enough to leave it dangle out of his hat like that, that it's
fair game.

I wear my hair long, but I go to great lengths (pun unintended, but noted)
to avoid altercations with drunks. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:47:40 -0400, willshak wrote:
on 9/10/2007 2:11 PM Ed Huntress said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
on 9/9/2007 11:18 AM Shawn Hirn said the following:
Ken wrote:

What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

I'm not going to read anymore of this thread. I'm afraid to go into my
work shed or pick up a tool!

I'm with you. It's scaring the pants off of me.

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.
The one tool that I use that I have the most respect for (read scared
of) is the radial arm saw, especially when ripping. Somehow, the blade
over the table is more respected (read scared of) than one under the table.
The others, I'm just merely careful.

Would you trust one of these?
http://www.sawstop.com/

Cheers!
Rich

In article ,
clifto wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nope. The first part of the amendment is a well regulated militia. It
is mentioned first, not as an add on, not as an afterthought, but as the
introductory clause of the piece. It sets out HOW and WHY it must not be
infringed. The context of when infringement takes place. It sets limits.
If you want to include the last part, you can't pretend that the first
doesn't exist.


The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

Actually, I'd love that. I saw these constructs so often in my early
reading that they became ingrained; if I've missed something I wanna know.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Hokay. As I said, the construction is uncommon but you'll recognize these
familiar examples:

(From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, "Absolute Construction"):

"No other business arising, the meeting was adjourned."
"The paint now dry, we brought the furniture out on the deck."
"The truck finally loaded, they said goodbye to their neighbors and drove
off."
"The horse loped across the yard, her foal trailing behind her."
"The picnic is scheduled for Saturday, weather permitting."
"Barring bad weather, we plan to go to the beach tomorrow."
"All things considered, it's not a bad idea."

Note that in some of these, the ones about the horse and her foal and the
one about the picnic, the absolute phrase is almost, but not quite,
incidental. The foal did not restrict the horse from loping across the yard,
so far as we can tell. The weather may decide if we have the picnic, but it
doesn't change the fact that the picnic is scheduled for Saturday.

We brought the furniture out on the deck at least partly because the paint
was dry. We would not have done so if it wasn't, probably, so the dryness of
the paint in this case is logically (but not grammatically) restrictive. The
good idea is logically, but not grammatically, connected to the idea that we
have considered all things. It still would have been a good idea if we had
not considered all things, in all likelihood, but the sentence is ambiguous
on this point.

Is it clearing up? The nominative absolute allows a variety of logical
connections between the phrase and the clause.

(Here's one I picked up online):

"High heels clattering on the pavement, the angry women marched toward the
mayor's office."

The women were marching regardless of whether their heels were clattering.

I hope this is enough to satisfy what you're looking for. I should point out
that the nominative absolute is a slightly controversial issue to
grammarians, but it may appear that way because some don't like the fact
that it's derived from Latin, in which the parallel to the English
nominative absolute is the "ablative absolute," and it really works better
in Latin than in English.

In English, the construction has always been rare. Linguists say it started
when early literary writers tried to adopt Latin constructions. John Milton
used in heavily in _Paradise Lost_. But it has never, otherwise, been
common.

Why the FFs used it is a good question. It's a literary device whose meaning
depends on context. But the 2nd has no context. My guess, after years of
studying it, is that it was an intentional ambiguity.

You probably noticed that Gunner made a point of the commas, which many
writers have done over the years. The commas would be an issue if the
grammatical question was whether the phrase is restrictive or not. But
that's not the issue. Absolute constructions -- the nominative absolute, in
this case -- have no grammatical relationship to the rest of their
sentences. They have various logical connections but "absolute" means they
are grammatically self-contained, or not connected. Once it's absolute,
there is no "restrictive" or "unrestrictive."

The point is that the commas don't matter. If the sentence of the 2nd
Amendment were written today, we would not use the first comma, but the
meaning would be identical to the original. The use of such "ear-based"
commas has declined but the meaning remains the same.

I have some definitions of nominative absolute that may help but I hope the
examples clear it up.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?

i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly button
lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings, and you liked
it that way.

Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
clifto wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms
shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nope. The first part of the amendment is a well regulated militia. It
is mentioned first, not as an add on, not as an afterthought, but as the
introductory clause of the piece.

It's not a clause. No predicate. It's a nominative absolute phrase.

It sets out HOW and WHY it must not be
infringed.

See my message to clifto. You can make no such assumptions.

The context of when infringement takes place. It sets limits.

It could just as well set a sufficient but not necessary condition, which,
after decades of studying it, is exactly what I think was intended.

If you want to include the last part, you can't pretend that the first
doesn't exist.

Neither can you draw any conclusions about what relationship it has to the
clause just from the sentence itself.



The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Pure guesswork. You can make no such assumption with a nominative absolute
construction. You need to know the context, and there is no context.

--
Ed Huntress

"Rich Grise" wrote in message

A spelling checker would not make much difference there, both
are valid words.

Or did you do some kind of typo and you are stuck with a
spelling checker which auto-corrects your typos without asking you what
you really meant to say?

Well, there are spelling checkers, but can you imagine trying to write
an "is this the right word here" checker? ;-)

Microsoft Word does have a grammar checker. Not perfect either, but it
helps at times.

on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?

i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly button
lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings, and you liked
it that way.


Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich



You had a belly button?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Rich Grise writes:

Uh, yeah, like, not fall off the scaffold in the first place? Acrophobia
can be pretty handy sometimes. ;-)

("Yeah, you get me a cherry picker, and I'll go up there again. Oh, and
let me double-check my harness...") ;-)

That's not acrophobia. Acrophobia is, "no." Trust me on this one.

willshak wrote:

on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?

i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly button
lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings, and you liked
it that way.


Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich



You had a belly button?


He did, till he tried to grow a wacky weed in it.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

They have a blade with the stop jambed in it at the local Woodcraft
store signed by an ukulele maker who got to keep all his fingers, so
I'd say it works. I'd still be just as carefull as I would with any
other table saw.
Karl



On Sep 15, 10:06 am, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:47:40 -0400, willshak wrote:
on 9/10/2007 2:11 PM Ed Huntress said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
on 9/9/2007 11:18 AM Shawn Hirn said the following:
Ken wrote:

What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

I'm not going to read anymore of this thread. I'm afraid to go into my
work shed or pick up a tool!

I'm with you. It's scaring the pants off of me.

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.
The one tool that I use that I have the most respect for (read scared
of) is the radial arm saw, especially when ripping. Somehow, the blade
over the table is more respected (read scared of) than one under the table.
The others, I'm just merely careful.

Would you trust one of these?http://www.sawstop.com/

Cheers!
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:

They have a blade with the stop jambed in it at the local Woodcraft
store signed by an ukulele maker who got to keep all his fingers,

Jings that's a shame. I'm as devastated as the day that I heard the
local accordion factory had been saved from a fire.

wrote:

| They have a blade with the stop jambed in it at the local Woodcraft
| store signed by an ukulele maker who got to keep all his fingers, so
| I'd say it works. I'd still be just as carefull as I would with any
| other table saw.

From _Systemantics_:

When a failsafe system fails, it fails by failing to fail /safe/.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

willshak wrote:
on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


willshak wrote:


You had dirt to grow berries in?


i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly button
lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings, and you liked
it that way.



Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich




You had a belly button?

Talking about belly buttons, what causes a woman's to protrude when they
get pregnant?

Dave

Dave wrote:
| willshak wrote:
|| on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:
||
||| On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|||
|||| willshak wrote:
||||
||||| You had dirt to grow berries in?
||||
|||| i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly
|||| button lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings,
|||| and you liked it that way.
|||
||| Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes!
||| ;-)
||
|| You had a belly button?
|
| Talking about belly buttons, what causes a woman's to protrude when
| they get pregnant?

straight man

I dunno, Mr Interlocutor, what makes her belly button protrude?

/straight man

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/