Stupid World

[pritch]

Let me share some facts....

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47711020.amp

Been happening since 1999.... 32 states require some type of drill by law to be conducted

None of which has anything to do with what I wrote.

US public schools are famously short of cash. It will vary from state to state, but few schools will be looking for extra expenditure. In most cases it will be school staff that conduct the drills.

[R650R]

Our good friend sheriff Grady Judd.... can’t help but think he’s having quiet poke at his Texas colleagues..... he don’t mess about for sure....
Love the line when asked about whether a warning was issued “ when you already shot up the place and already threatened deputies the conversations is over”

[R650R]

This town must have a good bottle recycling program as this mental defective resorts to using plastic cups to throw burning liquid at cop cars.
Top marks for not managing to set himself on fire though....

[nerrrd]

They don't actually, because Militia is Singular, referring to an Able Bodied Adult and Well Regulated means ready to do their duty.

‘Militia’ might be singular, but it’s a collective noun, like ‘crowd’. You can have one crowd, or several crowds, but you can’t have a crowd of one. Similarly a militia would have to be a group of adults. Pretty sure this would have been the case even back in the 18th century, given the original Latin.

[TheDemonLord]

‘Militia’ might be singular, but it’s a collective noun, like ‘crowd’. You can have one crowd, or several crowds, but you can’t have a crowd of one. Similarly a militia would have to be a group of adults. Pretty sure this would have been the case even back in the 18th century, given the original Latin.

The problem is that we have the supporting documents from the 18th century that show what their intent is and we have the subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

However - to answer your linguistic question - imagine you and I are in an unsavory part of the world, and we see a single Man, armed to the teeth with some improvised badges on him, I turn to you and say 'He looks like he's a Militia' - Is that or is that not grammatically correct?

If it is, then that proves the correct usage.

[pete376403]

The problem is that we have the supporting documents from the 18th century that show what their intent is and we have the subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

However - to answer your linguistic question - imagine you and I are in an unsavory part of the world, and we see a single Man, armed to the teeth with some improvised badges on him, I turn to you and say 'He looks like he's a Militia' - Is that or is that not grammatically correct?

If it is, then that proves the correct usage.

probably no more correct than saying "he is a army, or he is a police or he is a mongrel mob"

[nerrrd]

The problem is that we have the supporting documents from the 18th century that show what their intent is and we have the subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

However - to answer your linguistic question - imagine you and I are in an unsavory part of the world, and we see a single Man, armed to the teeth with some improvised badges on him, I turn to you and say 'He looks like he's a Militia' - Is that or is that not grammatically correct?

If it is, then that proves the correct usage.

As above, the grammatically correct usage for you and me would be “He looks like he’s militia” where the collective noun is used adjectivally to describe the group belonged to.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm going to combine these two posts, since they are essentially the same argument.

probably no more correct than saying "he is a army, or he is a police or he is a mongrel mob"

Probably? Probably isn't very precise.

As above, the grammatically correct usage for you and me would be “He looks like he’s militia” where the collective noun is used adjectivally to describe the group belonged to.

I disagree - because I've heard individuals referred to singularly as 'Militia' numerous times throughout the years, by the BBC (back when they strictly adhered to English Grammar)

In the way you are using it, I think it would be more correct to say 'He's in the/a militia', where you are - as you say - describing group membership.

The individual can still correctly be described as a Militia.

I will grant that this may be from a different etymology - that is a contraction of the phrase 'Militiaman', however before you go 'Ha, it's a different word therefore you are wrong' - I can't find any reference to this being used in 18th Century American sources, they speak extensively about the Minutemen - but no reference to Militiaman/Militiamen.

All the sources that I can find use Militia to describe both the group and the individual interchangeably from the 18th century, whereby the Context gives which meaning is intended. Further reading one this - specifically the Majority opinion of Heller v Columbia, the interpretation for Militia is individualist as it is the right of 'people' to own and bear arms which shall not be infringed, not the Militia:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Interestingly enough - Common Lawful purpose is one of the reasons why Sawn-Off shotguns aren't protected, but an AR is.

As I've said in other threads - the solution here is to try and ammend 2A, as opposed to trying to redefine the language.

[pete376403]

I guess it all depends where you learned to speak English...

[pete376403]

I'm going to combine these two posts, since they are essentially the same argument.



Probably? Probably isn't very precise.



I disagree - because I've heard individuals referred to singularly as 'Militia' numerous times throughout the years, by the BBC (back when they strictly adhered to English Grammar)

In the way you are using it, I think it would be more correct to say 'He's in the/a militia', where you are - as you say - describing group membership.

The individual can still correctly be described as a Militia.

I will grant that this may be from a different etymology - that is a contraction of the phrase 'Militiaman', however before you go 'Ha, it's a different word therefore you are wrong' - I can't find any reference to this being used in 18th Century American sources, they speak extensively about the Minutemen - but no reference to Militiaman/Militiamen.

All the sources that I can find use Militia to describe both the group and the individual interchangeably from the 18th century, whereby the Context gives which meaning is intended. Further reading one this - specifically the Majority opinion of Heller v Columbia, the interpretation for Militia is individualist as it is the right of 'people' to own and bear arms which shall not be infringed, not the Militia:.

Doesn't the original (not interpreted) refer to the "Right of THE people" ie collective. Not that I really care a whole lot, no matter how it is interpreted Americans will continue to kill each other with firearms - nine more plus a whole lot more wounded in Philadelphia, Chattanooga and Saginaw this morning.

[TheDemonLord]

Doesn't the original (not interpreted) refer to the "Right of THE people" ie collective.

Yes and No.

True it is referring to a Collective group, but since it's not qualified, it means everybody - therefore the right is interpreted at the Individual level.

[R650R]

TDL is correct, rest of you need to consult a real dictionary or one of many fantastic online ones which also produce same result....

Flashback to 1992 when some “ mainly peaceful protests” saw a mere 60 people killed.....

Just ask the Rooftop Koreans what they think about the 2A.... timely reminder how quickly law and order can breakdown and about how once it’s past a certain point nobody is coming in a timely manner to save you except yourself....

[TheDemonLord]

Flashback to 1992 when some “ mainly peaceful protests” saw a mere 60 people killed.....

Just ask the Rooftop Koreans what they think about the 2A.... timely reminder how quickly law and order can breakdown and about how once it’s past a certain point nobody is coming in a timely manner to save you except yourself...

Also a poignant reminder of why the argument of 'No one needs....' is wrong.

Same with Kyle.
Same with Ken and Karen Chadbro.
Same with Ukraine.

[husaberg]

TDL is correct, rest of you need to consult a real dictionary]

FAF
what do you know about being right.

Russia won’t invade anyway. There troops on border are like patched gang members sitting in a car in street while the prospects go do dirty work and collect debts.
There has been substantial internal skirmishes going on for a long time by rebel groups, many think Ukraine really is still pretty much Russia absent post Cold War changes. Funny how when yanks do same with cia interfering in other countries no one says anything...,,

Well well well, our journey into communist hell continues.

There has only been 1650 alleged cases (out of 700,000 tests!!!!) of the virus, but what has spread faster has been submission to communist control.
N


Masks are for destroying social interaction and communication with strangers. You know those moments in life when some shitbag is bashing his missus and enough of you make visual contact to know you’ve got each other back and intervene.
But with masks there will never be any Flight 93 “lets roll” moments of bravery, you’ll never know if your fellow citizen is a Karen or Stasi as you reluctantly board the blacked out train carriage...
A cop will never see your friendly smile, never know you like them and not let you off that minor stop sign indescretion...

The media are tripping over themselves trying to solve the mystery of why Africans aren't dying from covid as badly as the west.
Africans routinely take a cheap safe anti malaria drug invented in n 1960's called hydroxychloroquine....
Scooby Doo would solve that puzzle faster

Your odds of dying from Covid in NZ is about the same as winning Powerball....
People dream of winning powerball, actively visit known powerball superspreader hot zones twice a week in hope of winning...

Meanwhile about 6 times as many people die in drink drive car crashes.
We even have mass random surveillance testing for that too, typically about 1.5-2% are ‘ infected’ with the influence of alcohol.....
Would we tolerate say a 24hr lockdown every time you bought a beer at bar?
Or after your night at the bar you don’t leave through the front door, a govt agent escorts you to a ‘quarantine ‘ facility which you can’t leave for 24 hrs.
Just imagine that, we would ABSOLUTELY save 150 lives a year
The govt will NEVER do that so why all this crap with the virus where the potential victim has a 93% chance of not even needing hospital treatment...

The noun Pandemic is not mentioned in that post, does one not understand grammar.

Every disease is a Pandemic in the modern world as they all spread “across the country or roundvthe world”.

1600 people sick in a country of 5 million is no crisis worth destroying jobs and lives for.

Well it seems the MORE deadly and MORE contagious delta variant failed to deliver... just think about that, the infected person came on a flight where people would have taken masks off at times to eat and drink and all shared the same inflight tier facilities. THEN they sauntered all over a MAJOR metropolitan area and thefe was no outbreak.
Guess that’s why an ever nastier version lambda? Starts with L has just been “ discovered”....

Oh but we’ve locked down so quick, yes but not before the exposure events and not before all those exposed on weekends away returned to provincial centres.

One has to wonder if the new respiratory infection in young kids is a result of the sterility of lockdown life not letting there immune systems learn properly in early development months as the age band is very low.

[Viking01]

Also a poignant reminder of why the argument of 'No one needs....' is wrong.

Same with Kyle.
Same with Ken and Karen Chadbro.
Same with Ukraine.

So, what's the linkage with Ukraine ?