P= need a militia Q=right shall not be infringed. R= Individuals have a right. Given P implies Q is true, can R implies Q also be true, and if P become ~P, does that have any effect on R?
Not on R, but on Q. R can still exist, but it's unnecessary ∴ ~P ⇒~Q Now... answer MY question Compare these two sentences: "Professor Jones being absent, the students shall exit the classroom" and "The students shall exit the classroom because Professor Jones is absent" Do they mean the same? If there is any difference in meaning, what is the difference? Please don't go into hypotheticals about Professor Jones or the students. Stick to the sentences as written.
You cannot demonstrate this to be true. In fact, you cannot demonstrate you understand the point put to you.
Sorry, you don't get to decide if R is necessary based on P implies Q. If P implies Q, we do not know if ~P implies ~Q. That's not supported in logic. Example: If it stops raining, I'll go to the store. It doesn't stop raining. Could I still go to the store? Of course. We do know that if P implies Q, ~Q implies ~P but that's not what you're claiming. I answered your question already.
Huh? What are you talking about? P is a necessary condition for Q. "That it stops raining being necessary for me to go to the store...etc. " As in "A militia being necessary to the security of a free state... etc" As much fun as this is... I need you to answer the question. Oh... so you were trying to sidestep the question. I answered your question. Answer mine! Again: Compare these two sentences: "Professor Jones being absent, the students shall exit the classroom" and "The students shall exit the classroom because Professor Jones is absent" Do they mean the same? If there is any difference in meaning, what is the difference? Please don't go on in hypotheticals about Professor Jones or the students. Stick to the sentences as written.
If P implies Q, then if you have P, you must have Q. If you don't have P, i.e, a necessity for a militia, it tells us nothing about Q. Q can still exist. From post 174: One difference is that in the second sentence, the only reason that the students can possibly leave the classroom is due to his absence. The first allows for the students to leave for a plethora of reasons, one of which is the professor's absence. Let's look at the 2A. You're claiming that if p, then q: if we need a militia, then the people's rights shall not be infringed. Logically, though, ~p, i.e., we don't need a militia, imposes no knowledge on q. Given if p then q, ~p doesn't negate q at all. You're reading an if and only if into a statement that doesn't contain that. Are you still claiming that Scalia in Heller created individual right? "The Heller decision and other Supreme Court decisions have created an individual right to own guns" "But this "right" is not in the text of the 2nd A" Cruikshank put paid to this in 1876.
As I thought. You -don't- understand the point made to you. Thanks for the demonstration of your inability to grasp basic concepts of logic. ^^^^ In the running for the "most ironic statement ever posted on this forum" sward =
Failure to comprehend Logic 101 If it is raining, then you are wet; from this it only logically follows that if you are not wet, then it is not raining.
As far as the law goes, it doesn't really matter if there is the possibility that Q exists. A law which says "maybe it's okay to infringe on this right and maybe it isn't" doesn't make a lot of sense.
Q exists. It says so right there in the Amendment - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That was affirmed in Cruikshank: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Given the near absolute power of Congress over the militia, the right can't be the just right to bear arms in a militia. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...sound-argument.585248/page-10#post-1072476733 Pretty sure that the Second Amendment was fairly clear on what infringements were allowed.
How does the grammar of the Second Amendment support the argument that Q is true regardless of whether or not P is true?
Does the existence of the right depend upon the grammar of the Second Amendment, given that SCOTUS affirmed it exists regardless of the existence of the Constitution at all?
Q is the consequence of P. A militia must be necessary, for the right to bear arms (which is a constant) to not be infringed. The right to bear arms always exists, but it's irrelevant when a militia is not necessary. From a purely logical point of view , that would mean that it can be infringed. Not good enough. If somebody were to say to you "Professor Jones being absent, the students shall exit the classroom", it would be disingenuous of you to ask "Why did the students exist the classroom?". The only reason to be disingenuous is because you want to dance around the facts out of lack of arguments. So what is the difference between the two sentences as written? If there is no difference just admit it and stop dancing around! Again, here are the two sentences. "Professor Jones being absent, the students shall exit the classroom" and "The students shall exit the classroom because Professor Jones is absent" What would be the difference in the mind of any non-disingenuous American with an average education when they hear those phrases.
No, it's "if a militia is necessary, then the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If a militia isn't necessary, that tells us nothing about the rights of the people. ∴ ~P ⇒~Q hahahaha. You are the poster child for this. Why do you think that these sentences are in any way representative of the clauses of the Second Amendment. ∴ ~P ⇒~Q. Nice research.
For some reason, the image of a pesky fly buzzing around when you're trying to eat a delicious steak suddenly came to mind.
That's what I said. The right of the people is a constant. From a purely logical point of view, what it tells us is that the constant can be infringed. But, in reality, that wouldn't make sense. What it does mean is that it has become irrelevant. One of us got mixed up with the Ps and Qs, but I'm happy to see we are now in agreement. But you STILL need to answer the question. Answer the question and I'll tell you.
Yes. You are in error. It’s central to this thread. Still no evidence to support your claims that militias are no longer necessary for the security of a free state? Remember, you have criticized SCOTUS for affirming individual right to arms based on your claim. It’s time to back up your claim Golem. Please provide evidence SCOTUS is aware militias are no longer necessary but affirmed private ownership of arms anyway as activist judges. You specifically made this claim in the a OP. It is your argument. Back it up.
I’ve provided paragraphs of the founder’s reasons. You made the claim militias are no longer necessary. Back up your claim. Or fold....again.
You have got to be kidding me!!! There is no doubt that militias were necessary at the time of the foundation. How is it necessary to the security of a free state NOW? You have just proven that they are unnecessary by being unable to show any reason why they are necessary today!
It is hilarious watching people who damn well know what the second amendment means (and don't like it one bit) try to work backwards to revise what the founders intended in order that their scummy gun control schemes are not hateful to the constitution
