KipIngram

Those words are there, but the provide a reason for the main clause of the sentence, which is what I quoted. It does not say "the right of the people to form militias shall not be infringed." It says what it says. This is an endless argument, though - I think you're completely wrong and I won't be changing my mind - you think I'm completely wrong and you won't be changing your mind. I'll note again that the Supreme Court has repeatedly taken the position that the amendment does, in fact, describe some sort of individual right. I'll tell you where I think this gets hardest and thorniest. Interpreted directly, the amendment places no limitation on the right. An individual in the 1700s who owned a cannon could have claimed constitutional protection. And I imagine there were at least some people who did own cannons. Probably a small minority, but I imagine you could have found some. We just can't let it be that broad today - it's not ok for my neighbor to own a nuke. In other words, no one in their right mind would really claim that there should be no limitations on "arms bearing" in today's world. But the amendment doesn't provide for any limitations, so once you admit a single limitation of any kind you've breached the integrity of the amendment. So no one (in their right mind) is really calling for a 100% literal and total application of the 2nd amendment. Once you've admitted one limitation (citizens can't bear nukes), then there's no really good way to decide when to stop. What about tanks? RPGs? Etc. We are not helped in any way by the Constitution to decide where to draw that line. Someone who takes the position that it's ok to own a handgun for home defense but not ok to own a fully automatic military assault rifle doesn't find that opinion defined for them in the Constitution. But to get back to the OP of this thread, Rand's remark was not incorrect - it remains true that the whole point of the second amendment was to ensure that a government gone sour could be resisted with force of arms. Things may have changed such that the likelihood of success of such resistance would be a lot lower today than back then, but the right to try still remains. And it remains true now, just as it would have been then, that having things come to that (an armed uprising) would represent an utter failure of the system to work the way it's supposed to. Anyway, the whole business about then vs. now and nukes vs. cannons just means that we are no longer able (because of our advanced technology) to make this a clean and simple debate about the Constitution. All of us except nuts agree that some degree of limitations, in violation of the strict words of the Constitution, are necessary. So instead of that clean logical debate we're left with a public opinion debate about "how much" do we break the Constitution. What should be a matter of Constitutional law becomes a matter of public opinion.

math·e·mat·ics maTH(ə)ˈmadiks/ noun the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ). phys·ics ˈfiziks/ noun the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy. The subject matter of physics, distinguished from that of chemistry and biology, includes mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism, and the structure of atoms.

The gravity of the proton is entirely negligible compared to the Coulomb attraction force between the proton and electron. Also, you are speaking of these things as though the particle-like behavior of the electron and photon represent their fundamental natures. It's all fields all the time. We can see behaviors in those field that we can designate as particles and have our results work out a lot of the time, but sometimes that particle view completely fails us (double slit experiment, entanglement, etc.) There is no "positive charge" created by focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass. That's all charge-less photons. Photons do carry energy, though, and by focusing the beam you're packing that energy into a smaller space. There is so much wrong with the stuff you wrote that I won't even take time to itemize it all - the OP is struggling to get their mind around quantum theory and that kind of off the wall stuff doesn't help.

Wait - are you trying to claim that a string under tension doesn't propagate waves? If so, you're wrong - your null results reflect a flawed experimental setup. All stringed musical instruments work on this principle.

Well, first of all, the amendments, while not part of the original main body of the Constitution, are nonetheless equally binding in a legal sense - legally "the Constitution" is the starting document and all amendments. The first ten amendments (as well as two others that didn't get ratified) related to topics that were discussed at length during the original debate on the Constitution. A decision was made to follow the main document, once ratified, with those amendments. Legally it doesn't matter that it's not in the main document. And they did include broad wording to that effect: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's hard to get much more broadly worded than that. Would you say that the Founders didn't really intend to protect the right to free speech, since they didn't address it in the main body of the document but "only in an amendment"?

It is, but it is not "part of physics." Physics makes use of mathematics, but mathematics is studied in its own right as a "pure subject," independent of any application.

I don't get it - those aren't contradictory statements. There is math and there is science - they are separate fields. Computer "science" is more closely related to math.

Yes - that's my view as well.

Computer science really isn't a branch of physics. You could consider the electronic operations of a computer to be "approaching" physics, but most computer science programs in the US don't study that - you get that in an appropriate branch of electrical engineering. Good courses in computer science might address things like dealing properly with cache memories in multi-core programming, but they really don't go down to the level of flip flops and gates and transistors.

What the heck. You're right - I just looked it up. I could have sworn I read it that way somewhere in years past, but that's what you get when you read on the internet, I guess. I'll put it here just for our reference: 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. (http://constitutionus.com/) I still think you're right, though - if they had meant "militias only" they would have said so more definitively. It clearly says that it is "the people" whose right to bear arms won't be infringed. That's the same "people" as in "We the people." Thanks.

I feel like computer science is really more of a branch of mathematics than of science.

String theory is still hotly debated - it doesn't have nearly the sound basis in experimental proof that quantum theory does. By that I mean that yes, you really do have to accept quantum theory - there's little doubt about it these days. But string theory is still in the "maybe / maybe not" category.

Yes, that's one way to use a semicolon. Separating items in a list is also a proper way. Ok, maybe it wasn't you that brought up researching what the Founders actually thought. But you can't have it both ways - you either care what they thought in addition to what they wrote (in the Constitution), or you don't. The Supreme Court has never taken the position that the 2nd Amendment only refers to state militias. It might someday, if you can get yourself enough liberal minded "loose interpretation" Justices on there, but historically the position has steadfastly been that it applies to individual rights. I agree that, legally speaking, it's only what's actually written in the Constitution that matters. The opinions of the Founders beyond that is of interest, but it's really not terribly admissible in a legal process. What is pertinent, though, is the "standard rules of writing" at the time the Constitution was written. Arguing over whether the semicolon should be interpreted "this way" or "that way," how we use semicolons today is beside the point. What matters is how they were customarily used then. Because that's how you get at what they were really meaning to write into the document. Yes, at that time there were no "standing militias." Militias were "formed up" as needed from the body of citizens.

You interpret it in the way that suits your politics as opposed to the way it is written. One of the ways you use a semicolon is as follows: Use a semicolon between items in a list or series if any of the items contain commas. 1) The part about the people keeping and bearing arms 2) The part about militais Items. On. A. List. Separate items. Someone earlier mentioned "what the Founders really thought" as a topic of research. If you really think that the Founders had it in mind that individual citizens wouldn't be allowed to own guns, then I don't think you have a very sound understanding of the culture of the 1700's.

Oh, well, I meant actual private papers. Like letters published posthumously. The FP sort of went without saying. I agree with you on all points, swansont, including the "non militia only" meaning of the second amendment. I really think a popular or state uprising would have to be VERY thoroughgoing to have much of a chance against the standing army, as well-equipped as it is these days. I think success would require that many members of that army also be motivated to revolt, so you wound up with massive refusal to fight on behalf of the national army, and whole army units switching sides, and so on.

Sure thing. Let me tell you one more thing. It may be a while before you're fully prepared to really dig into this, but I recently read a paper by Art Hobson called "There Are No Particles, There Are Only Fields." After reading it and digesting it, I decided that I think that truly is correct. He makes a very solid case for the notion that ultimately all there is in physical reality is a set of quantum fields that interact with one another. Some of those interactions give rise to what we perceive as "particle like behavior," but nonetheless it's still all fields. If you know anything about the Fourier transform you know that the right set of sinusoidal waves spreading out over all of space can add up to something that looks like a lump in one spot, and that lump can move around. The reason I'm bringing this up is because some of the classic "paradoxes" in quantum theory, like the double slit experiment, cease to be paradoxical if you study them from the "fields only" perspective. The "quanta" of these fields is like one sinusoidal component of the Fourier decomposition of the field. Each quanta is spread out over all of space. When an interaction between two fields occurs, each field may lose or gain quanta - and that means that each field changes everywhere in space at the instant of the interaction. That's how the whole "spooky action at a distance" finds its way into things. Anyway, terribly sorry if that is unhelpful - I just found that particular paper to be a "milestone" in my own understanding of all this stuff. Also, pay a lot of attention to the stuff the user on this forum named Mordred has to say - he's top drawer.

I have too much to do this weekend to start digging for citations, but the whole evolution of politics that I've observed in my lifetime has been more and more away from "good faith willingness to compromise" and more and more toward "we are right and will prevail." On both sides - not claiming either side is innocent in the situation. It's just the general nature of political debate in our era. Neither the rabid right nor the rabid left really comes forth with a spirit of peaceful coexistence.

Are you telling me I'm mistaken? If so, what led you to that conclusion?

The wave function is a complex value at every point, and to determine the probability you "square it" (multiply the complex number by its complex conjugate) and then integrate that over a volume. If you've normalized the wave function so that the integral over all of space is 1.0, then the integral over a limited volume is the probability that the particle will be found in that volume. There's a ton of debate about what the wave function "really" is, and a lot of physicists preach the "shut up and calculate" methodology. There's also a lot of debate about what "collapse" is, or if it even really happens. I may be a tad ahead of you in this struggle with learning more about quantum theory, but probably not all that far. Good luck with it!

My daughter majored in environmental sciences and now works for a public policy foundation in Austin, Texas. A lot of public debate goes on around ecology, so there would be opportunities in that area.

I don't see any problem with the line of argument. I think it's perfectly possible to use science to argue that the chances of deities existing is 0.1%, or 0.001%, or whatever non-zero number you want to tack in there. But in a strict rigorous sense you just can't take that number to zero. I guess I'm sorry if that annoys you, but it's no less true because of that. I'm really not in disagreement with you - my own "hunch" is that deities do not exist. Like I said above (or in some other thread), if it turns out I'm wrong about that I could be in a heap of trouble come Judgement day. I try to be a decent person, but I certainly don't toe the letter of the law when it comes to scripture. But if you want to be rigorous, you should say "zero probability" unless you can make it stick, and we can't. I think you're making the point that things have changed for the better - and that's good. On the other hand, I saw a pair of pictures juxtaposed once, in one of those countries over there (maybe Syria?) One of them was taken in 1970, and it showed a group of fashionably (for 1970) dressed young women chatting in the street. Very nice looking women, and dressed and groomed to make that stand out. The other was taken in the last few years, and showed a group of women on the same street (maybe the same street corner), in full Islamic "cover as much as possible" garb. The caption below said "What Progress?" I guess it varies from place to place.

If you somehow did that (made a copy of me, precisely as I am now) in 110 years, then what you'd have is a person whose memories were completely inaccurate. I'd still believe it was 2017, and would be baffled when I found out it was 2227, until someone explained to me what had happened.

Do you want to know the reason that I'm averse to such "defined and reasonable" changes? There's one reason: I don't trust you to stop. If I really thought we could sit down and make a single, permanent, reasonable compromise about gun control, I'd be totally open to it. But the truth is that as soon as gun control advocates get that in the bag, they will start planning the next step, and then the next step. Maybe that doesn't describe you, but it describes enough of the people in that camp to make it a problem. So, how do you defend against an adversary that will never stop until they've achieved total victory? You do your best not to give them one single inch. I think there are a ton of things that make good sense in terms of placing some limitations on gun ownership. But because of what I just described, I'm really not even interested in sitting down at the negotiating table. I don't think I'd be dealing with people who would negotiate in good faith.

I think some of the private papers of a lot of those guys are available, though I can't aim you at them. But yeah, I think that given that they'd just had to use the force of arms to get the Brits out of their faces they wanted to make sure that that would be possible in their new society should it become necessary again. However, I'm sure they also wanted to do everything they could to make it not come to that - if it ever does come to that I think they'd regard that as a "failure" of the design.

I absolutely think he's right. I don't think it ever even crossed the minds of the Founders that anyone would question the use of firearms for hunting. The entire Constitutional point of the "right to bear arms" revolves around the potential need to overthrow a government gone bad. We can debate about whether they meant individual people or state militias (in those days the context of discussion was much more about the relationship between the states and the union). But the reason for the whole discussion was about the maintenance of freedom under dire circumstances. Keep in mind that these men had just lived through the overthrow of a tyrannical government. It was fresh on their minds.