In message , Gunner
writes
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:

John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

And you septics claim to understand English ?


--
geoff

In message , Gunner
writes
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

In the UK if we had the right to carry a gun and be immune to defending
ourselves against a mugger with a knife, or a burglar in the house,
then I am all for it.

Do you understand nurfink?


I understant that you're aren't qualified to own a gun, in your nanny
state.

One of the more sensible laws we have

True. Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.


So you're "gunner" in name only then ?


--
geoff

In message , Gunner
writes
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic


Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

I don't own a gun, nor do I want to

not owning one doesn't make me feel oppressed

Hey one - nill to England against Russia


--
geoff

In message , Morris Dovey
writes
willshak wrote:

| Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
| weapons ownership?

Because it does (in the last fourteen words of what you've quoted
below.)

| Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
| read it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
| "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 first clause is the rationale for what follows. If you don't
understand the motivation, a review of colonial history will
contribute to your appreciation of the principles involved. You might
find a review of the grievances listed in the Declaration of
Independence illuminating. The authors of the Constitution ensured
that citizens would be empowered to say "No!" to tyranny - both from
outside and from within our borders.

If you want to rebut by pointing out that there is no tyranny, then I
give you my very happiest smiley. :-)

One of our political comedians offered three thousand pounds ( the
proceeds from an article he wrote) to anyone who killed George Bush, and
as a true patriot, you should all be leaping at the chance


--
geoff

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

http://www.a-human-right.com/history_s.jpg


http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

Here we go! Hang on, folks, it's the battle of the Gun Quotes, and it's
going to be a bumpy ride...

Isn't poking rednecks fun ...

--
geoff

In message , Gunner
Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Spoils your day a bit if you're not a baddie, though


Of course it does. Nearly as bad as crashing through your windshield
on the highway.

Done that at 80 mph


Or falling off a ladder

That's for silly people

Or drowning in a swimming pool

Or bleeding to death after misusing a power tool

You'll like this ...

very gory - failed suicide bomber ...

http://nothingtoxic.com/media/118188...s_of_a_Failed_
Suicide_Bomber


Or choking to death on food

Pretzel ? we wish

Etc

So you have no issues with banning motorcars, ladders, swimming pools,
power tools and food.

Correct?

No, these are all things designed for things other than killing people

Sport aside, guns are there to kill


--
geoff

Uh, what does "the number of murders by gun crime" have to do with
"letting the mentally ill own firearms"? Are you suggesting that
committing murder is prima facie evidence that one is mentally ill?
If not then what are you suggesting?

A normal level-headed person doesn't commit murder unless they're sick
- or perhaps to use an old phrase, criminally insane.

Being "mentally ill" can come about in a variety of ways, such as
stress in work / being sacked (going postal), and maybe a little
mentally disturbed, i.e. finding your wife in bed with the neighbour -
having a gun available in these circumstances is likely to lead to a
more permanent ending than, say, a good punch up.

Most gun crime against kids in the UK is not perpetrated by other kids
(although the stats are getting worse) - whereas in the US it's pretty
much endemic.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so much
for guns keeping crime down...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Your stats are working great - we're only 27 times less likely to be
murdered by a gun toting luntic

27 times more likely to be murdered by a gun - I wonder why...

Funny thing, disregarding sports and target practice, most of my ammo
expended was for other purposes than killing. Probably have used a gun
as a drill more often than to kill something

Sounds like you're even more of a botcher at DIY than me, and that
takes some doing !

PS: how the hell did this end up in so many groups ? - i'm restricting
any further replies from myself to uk.d-i-y

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war. Circle goes
around--when I was a little kid buzz cuts and crew cuts were popular.
When I was a bit older styles got longer (I remember when the Beatles,
as they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, had scandalously long hair)
and longer and longer and then shorter and shorter and shorter and now
we're back to buzz cuts. In another 30 years or so it will be long
again.


If you still have any hair. ;-)

--
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

raden wrote:
In message , Morris Dovey
writes
willshak wrote:

Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
weapons ownership?

Because it does (in the last fourteen words of what you've quoted
below.)

Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
read it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"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 first clause is the rationale for what follows. If you don't
understand the motivation, a review of colonial history will
contribute to your appreciation of the principles involved. You
might
find a review of the grievances listed in the Declaration of
Independence illuminating. The authors of the Constitution ensured
that citizens would be empowered to say "No!" to tyranny - both
from
outside and from within our borders.

If you want to rebut by pointing out that there is no tyranny, then
I
give you my very happiest smiley. :-)

One of our political comedians offered three thousand pounds ( the
proceeds from an article he wrote) to anyone who killed George Bush,
and as a true patriot, you should all be leaping at the chance

Uh, that would mean Cheney gets to be President.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:

John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

And you septics claim to understand English ?

--
geoff


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


--
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

raden wrote:

One of the more sensible laws we have


Certainly! If you were allowed to own guns, you might tuurn back
into real men.

--
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

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:20:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

I wonder what his response will be if we bring up doctors, motor
vehicles, food and power tools, not to mention ladders....brrrrrrrrr!

Gunner


And distract him from the 24/7/365.25 Monty Python marathon on his
TV? Do you think he'd even notice?


--
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

raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic


God, are you dense. You don't DESREVE one, either. You let women
rule your country and they have done a wonderful job turning you into
one, too.




--
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

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic

Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?


Why should it? It matches his purse and his heels.


--
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

In message , Colin
Wilson o.uk writes
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so much
for guns keeping crime down...


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...crime-murders-
firearms-per-capita

Your stats are working great - we're only 27 times less likely to be
murdered by a gun toting luntic

27 times more likely to be murdered by a gun - I wonder why...

And lets not forget that more british soldiers were killed by septics
than by enemy combatants in the first gulf war



--
geoff

In message ,
nick hull writes
In article , raden
wrote:

Sport aside, guns are there to kill

Funny thing, disregarding sports and target practice, most of my ammo
expended was for other purposes than killing. Probably have used a gun
as a drill more often than to kill something

Right tool for the right job, eh ?

--
geoff

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

One of the more sensible laws we have


Certainly! If you were allowed to own guns, you might tuurn back
into real men.

What would you know


--
geoff

willshak wrote:

Bring on more insults.


Why? Can't you afford a mirror?


--
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

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes

He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic


God, are you dense. You don't DESREVE one, either. You let women
rule your country

Better than the retard that runs yours


OK rednecks, I'm bored with you now

byeee


--
geoff

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"willshak" wrote in message
...


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read it,
completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"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".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate.
It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute."
Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the
clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a
dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not
necessary condition.

Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't
be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally ambiguous.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to
calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not at all in agreement with much of any of this post. However, most
of it is opinion or subject to argument. However, that last piece is
not. The Bill of Rights was proposed by Congress and submited to the
States AFTER the Constitution had been ratified. The Constitution was
ratified by the 9th state on June 21, 1788 and became effective on
March 4, 1789. The first Congress under the Constitution submitted the
Bill Of Rights to the States for consideration as Amendments to the
Constitution on September 25, 1789. The Bill of Rights (or the first
10 Amendments to the Constitution) became effective on December 15,
1791. Clearly this timeline shows that the purpose was NOT "to get the
anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution" though
admittedly there was much talk about a Bill of Rights at the various
legislatures when the states were debating the Constitution. The
Federalist Papers and "anti-Federalist Papers" represent a number of
articles discussing this in the context of the times (along with a lot
of other issues of concern with the proposed Constitution).

"In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized
opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock,
negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for
ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Antifederalists had
demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider
it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had
retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the
Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be
considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into
effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the
Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in
the hope that it would be amended."[7]

Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire,
Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their
ratification instruments. They all sent recommendations for amendments
with their ratification documents to the new Congress. Since many of
these recommendations pertained to safeguarding personal rights, this
pressured Congress to add a Bill of Rights after Constitutional
ratification. Additionally, North Carolina refused to ratify the
Constitution until progress was made on the issue of the Bill of
Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their
quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were
not totally in vain." [from Wikipedia - yeah I know that is not
autoritative]



Dave Hall
Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a
"right," however, which is English common law.

raden wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

http://www.a-human-right.com/history_s.jpg


http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

Here we go! Hang on, folks, it's the battle of the Gun Quotes, and it's
going to be a bumpy ride...

Isn't poking rednecks fun ...


Yes it is, but tell us, Redneck, is it fun for you, too?


--
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

raden wrote:

One of our political comedians offered three thousand pounds ( the
proceeds from an article he wrote) to anyone who killed George Bush, and
as a true patriot, you should all be leaping at the chance


Why? Now of it was for anyone your sorry government thousands would
jump at it, even though most don't beleive in 'Mercy killing'. OTOH, it
is a nation of Queens, ruled by a bigger queen.

--
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

Colin Wilson wrote:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so
much
for guns keeping crime down...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Your stats are working great - we're only 27 times less likely to be
murdered by a gun toting luntic

27 times more likely to be murdered by a gun - I wonder why...

Please tell us of one instance in which a gun was successfully tried
for murder.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result


Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Spoils your day a bit if you're not a baddie, though

Of course it does. Nearly as bad as crashing through your windshield
on the highway.

Or falling off a ladder

Or drowning in a swimming pool

Or bleeding to death after misusing a power tool

Or choking to death on food

Etc

So you have no issues with banning motorcars, ladders, swimming pools,
power tools and food.

Correct?

Gunner


I keep waiting and hoping they will ban idiots and cowards. That
should reduce the world's population by at least 90%. Of course, they
would have to figure out what to do with all the crap left behind.


--
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

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Spoils your day a bit if you're not a baddie, though


Of course it does. Nearly as bad as crashing through your windshield
on the highway.

Done that at 80 mph


Or falling off a ladder

That's for silly people

Or drowning in a swimming pool

Or bleeding to death after misusing a power tool

You'll like this ...

very gory - failed suicide bomber ...

http://nothingtoxic.com/media/118188...s_of_a_Failed_
Suicide_Bomber


Or choking to death on food

Pretzel ? we wish

Etc

So you have no issues with banning motorcars, ladders, swimming pools,
power tools and food.

Correct?

No, these are all things designed for things other than killing people

Sport aside, guns are there to kill



That's funny, some of mine drive staples, others solder. You don't
know the difference between 'Gun' and 'Weapon'. Typical 'britidiot'.



--
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

Nancy Young wrote:

Yikes. Over this past weekend some guy was killed when his
shirt became entangled with a stump grinder being operated by
some tree company. No word on why the homeowner was
hanging around so close to the activity that he could get his
shirt caught.

nancy


Yet no one demands they outlaw shirts. Its sad, really.

Of course, if they outlaw shirts, only outlaws will own shirts.


--
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

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

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...


What can I say? My sense of humor has a hair trigger.


--
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

In article , raden
wrote:

Sport aside, guns are there to kill

Funny thing, disregarding sports and target practice, most of my ammo
expended was for other purposes than killing. Probably have used a gun
as a drill more often than to kill something

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

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.


--
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

Joe wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Making one pot of coffee with a little detegent in it excuses you of
having to EVER make coffee again. Have you ever seen a regular cup of
coffee with an inch of foam on the top? ;-

Isn't that what they call (super) cappuchino?
Couldn't taste any worse...


I wouldn't know. I've had three partial cups of coffee in 55 years.
The last time I made that mistake was over 30 years ago. I can barely
stand the smell of coffee, let alone the taste.


--
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

In article , raden
wrote:

why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

And you septics claim to understand English ?

I understand American, English is a foreign tongue

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Oh, I doubt that. Is there some historical support for that, say, in the
first years after our independence? There sure were plenty of armed citizens
around.
snip
While this depends on definitions, while there were indeed plenty
of armed citizens in the first few years of the Republic, there
was an almost total lack of politicians and functionaries as they
had all decided to move back to England (either before or after
the tar and feathers). Over time, we grew our own, until we are
again overrun.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

Charley wrote:

Before my retirement from firefighting and rescue, about 30 years ago, I
once responded directly to the scene to a dispatch call for "A Man Down".
This means that someone has been reported hurt or requested an ambulance,
but the dispatcher couldn't get any further information from the caller
other than the location. When I pulled up to the scene I found that I was
the first emergency help to arrive and observed a small crowd that had
gathered around a guy who was lying in the street. As I approached, the
crowd parted and let me go to work on the guy. He was really tore up. I
quickly discovered that the only part of him that seemed to be still working
OK was his mouth. All while I was working on him he kept cussing out a woman
in the crowd, ( I found out later that she was his wife) and she kept
apologizing and crying. I had to stop working on him several times to get
him to calm down and lay still so I could bandage him and I was very glad
when some additional squad members showed up to help me.

While we were working to get his wounds patched and his leg and arm
splinted, I discovered that there was a large rope tied around his waist
that led out through the crowd to a car that was parked about 200' down the
road. After the ambulance arrived and we had cut him loose from the rope,
loaded him on the stretcher, and sent him off to the hospital, I managed to
find out what had happened to him from some of his neighbors and from an
investigation of his home and property.

He had been working on the roof of his house (almost 2 blocks away from
where I found him) and he had tied the rope from his car up over the front
of the roof of his house to his waist to keep from falling off his back roof
, but he hadn't bothered to take his wife's car keys away from her. She
decided to go shopping and went out, got in the car, and drove off. As she
drove away the rope pulled him up over the peak of his house at such
velocity that he didn't land until he reached some very large bushes near
the end of his driveway. She then dragged him out through the bushes and
down the street for almost 2 blocks before noticing that he was behind her.
(Yes, she was a blonde...if that counts.) As best as we could tell he had 1
broken leg and 1 broken arm, 3 or 4 broken ribs, a concussion, and some very
severe road rash over his back, one side of his face, both legs and both
arms. I heard later that he spent 2 days in the hospital, but I never heard
any more about him.

In my opinion it was his own fault for not telling his wife where he was
working and for not taking her car keys away from her, but at the time of
his accident he was very upset with her and blaming her for all of it. I
have often wondered if they are still married.

Let this be a lesson to all of you - If you have to use a rope to do your
high maintenance repairs, make sure you tie it to something that isn't going
to drive away.


Are you SURE she didn't see the rope?


--
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

on 9/12/2007 4:49 PM Michael A. Terrell said the following:
willshak wrote:

Bring on more insults.



Why? Can't you afford a mirror?

I have a few of them.
I also have a DD214. Sorry about your injury. I was fortunate to have
served between the Korean and Viet Nam wars.
I also have a certificate honoring my 38 years of municipal service,
which service required that I enforce the criminal and traffic laws of
New York State and carry a gun when on duty.
I also own 5 handguns and two rifles.
I also was once a member of the NRA.
Surprised?



--

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

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"willshak" wrote in message
...


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it,
completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"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".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate.
It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute."
Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the
clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a
dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not
necessary condition.

Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't
be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally
ambiguous.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to
calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not at all in agreement with much of any of this post. However, most
of it is opinion or subject to argument.

None of it is opinion. Opinions are what people have when they don't have
the facts. The facts in this case are not at all difficult to find.

The first part you can clear up by finding a good English grammar text,
British or American. Or look up "nominative absolute" on the Web. It ought
to be there someplace.

FWIW, a "clause" in the law means several things. In English, it means just
one thing. A phrase can be a clause in legal terms but not in grammatical
terms. And it is the grammar of it, not the law, that determines such things
as grammatical dependency.

I've been an editor for 34 years. Don' gimme no stuff. g

However, that last piece is
not. The Bill of Rights was proposed by Congress and submited to the
States AFTER the Constitution had been ratified. The Constitution was
ratified by the 9th state on June 21, 1788 and became effective on
March 4, 1789. The first Congress under the Constitution submitted the
Bill Of Rights to the States for consideration as Amendments to the
Constitution on September 25, 1789. The Bill of Rights (or the first
10 Amendments to the Constitution) became effective on December 15,
1791. Clearly this timeline shows that the purpose was NOT "to get the
anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution" though
admittedly there was much talk about a Bill of Rights at the various
legislatures when the states were debating the Constitution.

Your understanding of it is incorrect. Those states that demanded an
explicit bill of rights ratified on the condition that Congress would
produce one. This fact is all over the history books. It's not a
controversial issue.

The
Federalist Papers and "anti-Federalist Papers" represent a number of
articles discussing this in the context of the times (along with a lot
of other issues of concern with the proposed Constitution).

"In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized
opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock,
negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for
ratification on February 6, 1788 (187-168).

....which is what I said above, and which you appear to be contesting.

Antifederalists had
demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider
it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had
retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the
Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be
considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into
effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the
Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in
the hope that it would be amended."[7]

....as I said above.


Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire,
Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their
ratification instruments. They all sent recommendations for amendments
with their ratification documents to the new Congress. Since many of
these recommendations pertained to safeguarding personal rights, this
pressured Congress to add a Bill of Rights after Constitutional
ratification. Additionally, North Carolina refused to ratify the
Constitution until progress was made on the issue of the Bill of
Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their
quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were
not totally in vain." [from Wikipedia - yeah I know that is not
autoritative]

....as I said above.

Just what is it you're contesting?

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Oh, I doubt that. Is there some historical support for that, say, in the
first years after our independence? There sure were plenty of armed
citizens
around.
snip
While this depends on definitions, while there were indeed plenty
of armed citizens in the first few years of the Republic, there
was an almost total lack of politicians and functionaries as they
had all decided to move back to England (either before or after
the tar and feathers). Over time, we grew our own, until we are
again overrun.

....sigh... George, I can't wait until you write your book. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful.
snip

While I am a life member of the NRA, this is more fund raising
and s**t disturbing.

In most cases a single member in either house can place a "hold"
on a bill. Thus all of the gun legislation was passed with at
least the tacit cooperation of the so-called "pro gun"
legislators.

This again appears to be more punch-n-judy show for the suckers,
er... ah .. campaign contributors and voters.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful.
snip

While I am a life member of the NRA, this is more fund raising
and s**t disturbing.

In most cases a single member in either house can place a "hold"
on a bill. Thus all of the gun legislation was passed with at
least the tacit cooperation of the so-called "pro gun"
legislators.

This again appears to be more punch-n-judy show for the suckers,
er... ah .. campaign contributors and voters.

Not to mention us new members. g

I forgot to mention that the sweet young thing offered me a lifetime
membership at the reduced rate of $700. I told her she'd have to reduce it a
hell of a lot more than that before it was a good deal for me...

--
Ed Huntress