• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Recent content by dabateman

  1. dabateman

    Kansas bans Sharia Law

    Our laws require equal treatment of religions to prevent favoritism, thus official support/establishment. If you want to prevent sharia law from being used in cases between members of Islam, you must prevent Christian law and Jewish law from being used as well as you are required to treat the...
  2. dabateman

    Kansas bans Sharia Law

    Then by that assertion, neither does Christian law or Jewish law...
  3. dabateman

    Kansas bans Sharia Law

    I must have had a moment. It's 10th Circuit, not 5th. I have no idea what inspired me to write 5th... :roll:
  4. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    The reasons you think it means military are the reasons I think it means people, but the argument could be made either way I suppose. I just think they were interested in having a militia because they did have both. Which is what I've advocated since my first post in this thread. :peace
  5. dabateman

    Kansas bans Sharia Law

    This sort of thing has been recently overturned in an Oklahoma 5th Circuit case.
  6. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    I tend to disagree that militia = military. It is my understand through reading their work that militia was a civilian force. Agreed... That at the time of the framing the people were well trained in arms. And that they intended for a well trained civilian population. I think I've made...
  7. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    You're done. And that's fine. :peace Commas are used in the English language to separate things. In this case clauses.
  8. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    There are four. You separate them into two as you wish, instead of reading the sentence as a whole. You create an independent clause out of two dependent clauses, and try to say that it's severable. It's not.
  9. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    The way that it was written, as four clauses, denotes intent. If you change the way it was written, as you would have to do to make your assertion correct, you change the meaning. Insults, do not change the facts. Four clauses.
  10. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    Four clauses do not = two clauses.
  11. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    The problem with your initial assertion is that there are TWO clauses instead of FOUR clauses.
  12. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    Well you can't count. It's four clauses...
  13. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    Shifting goal posts and accordingly you're supporting an argument that the document can mean anything we want simply by removing dependent clauses.
  14. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    No, I'm merely following what the founders actually wrote. Delusions would be not using what they wrote and saying that it meant popcorn! :)
  15. dabateman

    Central meaning of the second amendment

    They indeed do. But it matters not. Even if you assert that there are two clauses, one dependent and one independent, it's not written in a severable manner. The well regulated militia is central to the purpose.
See more
Back
Top Bottom