100% agree! I had a pair of boots that started causing pain in my 5th metatarsal and small toe. Initially the boots had fit pretty well, but over time the fit changed enough to cause pain. Even after tossing the boots out for better pair, the pain persisted for a long while even though the new boots fit perfectly -- it was a lingering effect from the previous boots.
Many people think that improper fit will show up in foot pain or blisters when in fact they routinely show up in pain elsewhere such as shins, knees, hips and even the back, as your experience demonstrates.
When trying one new boots it is important to wear the same kind of socks as you would normally wear. And when the salesman tells you to try walking around in them or try them on a little fake hill in the store, do it. If anything is amiss, do not compromise. Some models/brands just do not fit some people very well, so if you can't find a satisfactory fit in the model/brand you first chose, don't be afraid to change to another model/brand.
"First, Radio guy seems to think that this one odd reason was chosen at random. "
Incorrect assumption on your part. Nothing I have written even suggests that it was chosen at random.
And in case you missed it, it was happyfew who started the discussion regarding the grammar of the Second. We were merely refuting his completely inept conclusion, when you jumped into the middle of it. I can easily discuss the historical and the legal attributes regarding the Second Amendment. So, your assertion that we "think that their case can be made effectively only on a strictly grammatical basis" is yet another faulty assumption on your part.
A predicate has an action or finite verb. A participle is a non-finite form of verb used to modify a noun in a way similar to an adjective or adverb. While participles can help form a predicate, they can only be the main verb of the predicate when part of a catena or chain of verbs which contains a finite or action verb.
So no, the first thirteen words are not a clause.
" According to your Number 2 principle, two clauses do not ever refer to each other just because they happen to find themselves in the same sentence."
Well... if you think there are two clauses, that is one of your mistakes. There is only one. The first 13 words are not a clause, they are a phrase. The last 14 words are a clause.
To play the word substitution game, try this:
"A well tuned engine being necessary to the operation of an efficient vehicle, the right of the people to keep and use tools shall not be infringed".
According to happyfew's reading, this sentence either requires the tools to be well tuned or the keeping and using of tools must be well tuned. Clearly, happyfew's reading violates the basic rules regarding the placement of modifiers.
So, toss happyfew's misguided reading out with the trash.
Applying some of the other approaches that we see gun controllers use when reading the Second Amendment, the sentence above would be asserting that only engines or vehicles have a right to tools, that the sentence says that only tools that can be used to tune an engine are protected, or that it establishes a vehicle's right to a well tuned engine.
As with the Second, the first 13 words of this sentence do not create, modify, or limit the subject of the clause.
Instead, what the beginning of the sentence does is to show one, but not the only, reason that the people's right to keep and use tools is to be protected.
"It is very likely that our Founding Fathers did not think they needed to protect individuals from this kind of federal intrusion, because they could not believe the federal government would ever take away the right to self defense."
Actually, that is something they definitely feared.
"On the other hand, our Founders might have serious concerns about the federal government deciding to regulate state militias, even to abolish them, in order to promote and maintain a despotic regime. "
Covered in the body of the Constitution.
The "justification" (first 13 words) in the Second Amendment do not create, modify, or limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as happyfew seems to believe, but rather, this non-restrictive phrase gives one (but not the only) important reason that the pre-existing right is not to be infringed.
I would gladly explain the grammar of the entire sentence to you, happyfew, but it is a pretty sure thing that your head will explode.
Here are the grammatical basics though: 1) The term "well regulated" only applies to the word "militia" and not to anything else in the sentence. 2) The first 13 words do not create, modify, limit, or restrict words 14 thru 23 (the subject of the sentence and its modifiers) in any way.
"A red car being more visible to police, the car shoppers bought a grey car."
If we read this the same way happyfew is reading the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment, the sentence above is telling us that the car shoppers are red.
Epic failure on the part of happyfew.
And despite happyfew's assertions otherwise, people are not in any rush to leave the NRA and over 85% of the NRA's funding comes from member dues and member donations, not from corporate gifts. In fact, the biggest gripe many in the NRA have with the organization is that in their opinion the NRA has been too willing to compromise. This has led to the formation of groups like the GOA, NAGR, JFPO, SAF, RKBA, and others. The SAF has been particularly effective and is the group responsible for the Heller and McDonald decisions.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation