Oh, and in their Heller decision, SCOTUS has already upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms independent of service in "the militia"... It's the question of 14th Amendment incorporation by the states that's in question now, since DC is not a state.

You say weapons are somehow 'different', but why? Can you explain?

The first clause is a preamble, or justification (not a "qualifying") clause. For the same reason the First Amendment is not limited to handwriting and movable type (the technology of the day), nor are they limited to use by "the press", how should the Second Amendment only apply to flintlock muskets in use by an organized militia? Also, is the Second Amendment not clear in referring to it being a right of "the people"? The Constitution is always clear when referring to "the people", "the states" and entities within the federal government, so why would it mean something different in this case?

The entire text of the Second Amendment reads "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." [emphasis mine] So the Framers already qualified it.

That's not a qualifier: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndana.html

There's a link to a page that does an etymological analysis of the Second Amendment based on the rest of the Constitution and 18th century usage. Further, the second clause being a prerequisite for the first does not mean the converse is necessarily true, logically speaking.

I gave up cable TV years ago when I got divorced and moved out. Hadn't watched it in a year or two, anyway. Now I have my cell phone and a cable internet, I don't need a landline OR the TV. Netflix, clips on YouTube, and occasionally network series on hulu are all I ever partake of, and I don't want for more.

I bet this game never loses 'suction'! :)

Where's Richard Dawkins when you need him!

Cheers,

Ethelred

See, this is where the reasonable Christians and we go apart. You are 100% right that God cannot be disproven or proven, BUT we have probability and that really speaks against God.

I see this claimed all the time, but it's an argument by assertion if there ever was one. There is no possible way to come up with such a probability in any objective manner.

The laws of physics are properties of this Universe. Logic itself is also a property of the Universe. It is therefore by definition impossible to apply the laws of physics or logic to anything that is by definition outside this Universe. Any attempt to claim "proof" or even "probability" of such is doomed to failure.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Oh, but I can. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm self-employed.. ;-)

Cheers,

Ethelred

Finally, and I want you to think thoroughly about it, would you help someone like Richard Dawkins with your work even though you know your work will be used to draw people out of your church?

I have.

Cheers,

Ethelred

I'll just echo what peacefinder says, and add that I'm really sorry it had to end up this way.

Best of luck (and much strength) in working through the aftermath.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Egads. Now I see what you mean. That's absolutely fugly, and counterintuitive to boot.

WTF?

Cheers,

Ethelred

I just went to the "Write in Journal" link, and it looks the same to me -- or am I missing something?

Cheers,

Ethelred

Hope you both have the strength to get through this. That's really awful. :-(

Cheers,

Ethelred