America and immigration.

What about the other part of the sentence is informative to the second?

I'm not sure what you are asking. This is basic grammar.

In grammar, a modifier is an optional element in phrase structure or clause structure. A modifier is so called because it is said to modify (change the meaning of) another element in the structure, on which it is dependent.

If we simply look at the structure of a complex sentence, how would you interpret that as two distinct sentences forming complete thoughts on their own? They don't. Therefore the entire sentence is considered in order to form a coherent message.

I tried to be as clear as possible with the example I gave, which you didn't address. Since I've answered your questions, I'd appreciate you giving your thoughts on what I asked:

A well regulated insulin maintenance program, being necessary to the health of a diabetic, the right of the people to keep and inject insulin, shall not be infringed.

If you were a doctor, would you hand out the above axiom to your patients and simply insist on the underlined fragment above, willfully ignoring the part about a 'well regulated insulin maintenance program'?
 
I'm not sure what you are asking. This is basic grammar.

In grammar, a modifier is an optional element in phrase structure or clause structure. A modifier is so called because it is said to modify (change the meaning of) another element in the structure, on which it is dependent.

If we simply look at the structure of a complex sentence, how would you interpret that as two distinct sentences forming complete thoughts on their own? They don't. Therefore the entire sentence is considered in order to form a coherent message.

I tried to be as clear as possible with the example I gave, which you didn't address. Since I've answered your questions, I'd appreciate you giving your thoughts on what I asked:

A well regulated insulin maintenance program, being necessary to the health of a diabetic, the right of the people to keep and inject insulin, shall not be infringed.

If you were a doctor, would you hand out the above axiom to your patients and simply insist on the underlined fragment above, which most likely would kill them if they ignored the entire sentence as a complete thought?

It doesn't say what you think it says. Your partisanship is clouding your mind. I'll try another angle though. Why don't you give me your reaction to this:

A well educated electorate being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Is the second part dependent on the first? If so, in what way?
 
It doesn't say what you think it says. Your partisanship is clouding your mind. I'll try another angle though. Why don't you give me your reaction to this:

A well educated electorate being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Is the second part dependent on the first? If so, in what way?

Look. I know you like playing Socrates, but if we are going to have a two-way conversation, it's probably not very productive if you ignore all my questions while continuing to ask your own.

I will address your question as soon as you give me your expertise in healthcare, and tell me if you would ignore a diabetic's need to regulate their insulin, and instead stress to them that the only importance is that they have unfettered access to as much insulin as possible.
 
Look. I know you like playing Socrates, but if we are going to have a two-way conversation, it's probably not very productive if you ignore all my questions while continuing to ask your own.

I will address your question as soon as you give me your expertise in healthcare, and tell me if you would ignore a diabetic's need to regulate their insulin, and instead stress to them that the only importance is that they have unfettered access to as much insulin as possible.

Another learning moment for you. The term "regulate" is not what you think it is. It's not regulatory in terms of a management of insulin, or regulatory in terms of having the right amount of hand washing stations inside a storefront.

The word "regulate" here is a martial term applied in a martial context, as in the regular militia or "the regulars" because they regularly train (the first part of the amendment), and as opposed to the "irregulars" or irregular militia (the second part). The second clause is not dependent on the first. The amendment is saying you need both militia to sustain a free society.

Good talk, hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Troll detected lol.

yes-im-going-to-type-lol-so-they-know-i-laughed.jpg
 
Another learning moment for you. The term "regulate" is not what you think it is. It's not regulatory in terms of a management of insulin, or regulatory in terms of having the right amount of hand washing stations inside a storefront.

The word "regulate" here is a martial term applied in a martial context, as in the regular militia or "the regulars" (the first part of the amendment), and as opposed to the "irregulars" or irregular militia (the second part). The second clause is not dependent on the first. The amendment is saying you need both militia to sustain a free society.

Good talk, hope this helps.

The only thing this helped was cementing the fact that you want a one-sided argument, where you get to ask all the questions, and jump to different areas of contention when it suits you.

I can address the above, which I have before, in a conversation with you awhile ago, but I will not, until you humor me with how you would approach the same sentence structure if applied to a diabetic patient.
 
Name a country in the world without a border and immigration law. Any country

Countries being invaded by hostile forces do not count.

One day they will be no borders. Mankind will never evolve with this kind of barbaric mindset.
 
The only thing this helped was cementing the fact that you want a one-sided argument, where you get to ask all the questions, and jump to different areas of contention when it suits you.

I can address the above, which I have before, in a conversation with you awhile ago, but I will not, until you humor me with how you would approach the same sentence structure if applied to a diabetic patient.

Sure, thank you for cementing the reality that instead of conceding the point in the face of an objectively misinformed opinion on the 2A you double down on rationalizing away the dissonance.
 
Sure, thank you for cementing the reality that instead of conceding the point in the face of an objectively misinformed opinion on the 2A you double down on rationalizing away the dissonance.

"Objectively misinformed".

Is this why all SCOTUS interpretations of the 2ndA have stated that you do not have a right to completely unregulated firearms?
 
"Objectively misinformed".

Is this why all SCOTUS interpretations of the 2ndA have stated that you do not have a right to completely unregulated firearms?

Who gives a shit what some politically appointees say. They also ruled that DUI check points are constitutional stops as well... on top of any number of other silly rulings. The 2A specifically, is in potential direct opposition to their seats of power... of course they're going to lean towards it's restriction.

@alanb
 
The word "regulate" here is a martial term applied in a martial context, as in the regular militia or "the regulars" because they regularly train (the first part of the amendment), and as opposed to the "irregulars" or irregular militia (the second part). The second clause is not dependent on the first. The amendment is saying you need both militia to sustain a free society.

Good talk, hope this helps.

The 2ndA is not a compound sentence.

It cannot be separated into two distinct thoughts that stand on their own.

Or are you insinuating that the Founding Fathers, and subsequent SCOTUS interpretations, all don't understand grammar the way you do?
 
Utopia? Just because open border? Most Americans need to actually visit other countries to see how awesome they are.
I've been to about 20 countries between military trips and personal/vacation trips.

All the countries I've visited have immigration check point/border security upon entering their country with the exception of Afghanistan because they are being invaded.
 
Who gives a shit what some politically appointees say. They also ruled that DUI check points are constitutional stops as well... on top of any number of other silly rulings. The 2A specifically, is in potential direct opposition to their seats of power... of course they're going to lean towards it's restriction.

@alanb

LOL. You need to call in backup now?

Seriously disappointed.
 
The 2ndA is not a compound sentence.

It cannot be separated into two distinct thoughts that stand on their own.

OK, I just told you what the amendment says, and what it means in the context it was written. Do with it what you want. Let the dissonance take over or get informed.
 
LOL. You need to call in backup now?

Seriously disappointed.

No back up needed. In fact, I have no idea what he's going to say with regard to my SCOTUS comment. He is, however, the expert on legal issues around here.
 
No back up needed. In fact, I have no idea what he's going to say with regard to my SCOTUS comment. He is, however, the expert on legal issues around here.

This is a grammatical issue.
 
OK, I just told you what the amendment says, and what it means in the context it was written. Do with it what you want. Let the dissonance take over or get informed.

Are we circling back to the context issue? You know, the one where you ignore that the 2ndA was written during a time when muskets could fire a couple rounds a minute, and the entire population of the nation was about 2.5 million?
 
Back
Top