<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bias Against Guns</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dailyreckoning.com</link>
	<description>Covering the economy, global markets and world politics.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:19:44 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joan Teel</title>
		<link>http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/#comment-135</link>
		<dc:creator>Joan Teel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agoratestsite.com/wordpress-dr/?page_id=5139#comment-135</guid>
		<description>I will go even further with the wording of the Second Amendment: as a former writing tutor with a bachelor&#039;s degree in English with a concentration in writing, I too believe the wording is terrible. In fact, it is grammatically incorrect. The sentence is a comma splice (two sentences joined with a comma). It contains two subjects: &quot;a well regulated Militia&quot; and &quot;the right ...,&quot; but only one verb: &quot;shall not be infringed.&quot; I find it confusing, because I am not sure to which phrase &quot;shall not be infringed&quot; refers, or if to both. Did the founding fathers make it purposely confusing? I can&#039;t imagine they would want such a right ambiguous, but perhaps they were so entrenched in legalese that they didn&#039;t stop to look at it from a layman&#039;s point of view. 
Another point that bothers me is that lawyers and lawmakers always speak of the Federalist papers when trying to determine the intent of the Constitution, but the Anti federalists were the ones who insisted on the Bill of Rights, while the Federalists insisted we didn&#039;t need it. It was an intense and somewhat violent battle, with the Anti federalists burning in effigy the Federalist, who conceded only after it became apparent that not enough states would ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. So the next time you go to the gun shop, thank the Anti federalists for having the foresight to protect our rights. I frightens me to think what would have happened if had they not won. Statistics would be all we had.
I discovered the fight while writing a paper for my business ethics class on eminent domain, another basic right being eroded by our current so-called Justice System.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will go even further with the wording of the Second Amendment: as a former writing tutor with a bachelor&#8217;s degree in English with a concentration in writing, I too believe the wording is terrible. In fact, it is grammatically incorrect. The sentence is a comma splice (two sentences joined with a comma). It contains two subjects: &#8220;a well regulated Militia&#8221; and &#8220;the right &#8230;,&#8221; but only one verb: &#8220;shall not be infringed.&#8221; I find it confusing, because I am not sure to which phrase &#8220;shall not be infringed&#8221; refers, or if to both. Did the founding fathers make it purposely confusing? I can&#8217;t imagine they would want such a right ambiguous, but perhaps they were so entrenched in legalese that they didn&#8217;t stop to look at it from a layman&#8217;s point of view.<br />
Another point that bothers me is that lawyers and lawmakers always speak of the Federalist papers when trying to determine the intent of the Constitution, but the Anti federalists were the ones who insisted on the Bill of Rights, while the Federalists insisted we didn&#8217;t need it. It was an intense and somewhat violent battle, with the Anti federalists burning in effigy the Federalist, who conceded only after it became apparent that not enough states would ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. So the next time you go to the gun shop, thank the Anti federalists for having the foresight to protect our rights. I frightens me to think what would have happened if had they not won. Statistics would be all we had.<br />
I discovered the fight while writing a paper for my business ethics class on eminent domain, another basic right being eroded by our current so-called Justice System.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milton Schick</title>
		<link>http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Milton Schick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agoratestsite.com/wordpress-dr/?page_id=5139#comment-133</guid>
		<description>&quot;Well-regulated&quot; also means the firearm&#039;s sights are adjusted to the correct point-of-aim at whatever yardage the firearm is sighted in for. Yes, our founding fathers did know about setting a firearm&#039;s sights for accuracy. The results at Concord Bridge are a prime example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Well-regulated&#8221; also means the firearm&#8217;s sights are adjusted to the correct point-of-aim at whatever yardage the firearm is sighted in for. Yes, our founding fathers did know about setting a firearm&#8217;s sights for accuracy. The results at Concord Bridge are a prime example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al Newman</title>
		<link>http://dailyreckoning.com/bias-against-guns/#comment-117</link>
		<dc:creator>Al Newman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://agoratestsite.com/wordpress-dr/?page_id=5139#comment-117</guid>
		<description>Actually, I understood the term &quot;well regulated&quot; at the time of the Bill of Rights was meant &quot;well trained&quot; since most men at that time had their own weapons and powder and ball. I have read that the &quot;militia&quot;,us did their own training together. The battle at Lexington was the militia defending its right to bear arms.  The British were coming to confiscate the colonist&#039;s arms that were stored in their armory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I understood the term &#8220;well regulated&#8221; at the time of the Bill of Rights was meant &#8220;well trained&#8221; since most men at that time had their own weapons and powder and ball. I have read that the &#8220;militia&#8221;,us did their own training together. The battle at Lexington was the militia defending its right to bear arms.  The British were coming to confiscate the colonist&#8217;s arms that were stored in their armory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
