<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Mistakes People Make re the 2nd Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://micahtillman.com/2008/07/17/two-mistakes-people-make-re-the-2nd-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/07/17/two-mistakes-people-make-re-the-2nd-amendment/</link>
	<description>Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Micah Tillman</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/07/17/two-mistakes-people-make-re-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-3275</link>
		<dc:creator>Micah Tillman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/?p=547#comment-3275</guid>
		<description>What I think you think the 2nd Amendments says is this:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, keeping and bearing Arms should be considered a right, and therefore shall not be infringed.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I think you think the 2nd Amendments says is this:</p>
<p>“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, keeping and bearing Arms should be considered a right, and therefore shall not be infringed.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micah Tillman</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/07/17/two-mistakes-people-make-re-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-3274</link>
		<dc:creator>Micah Tillman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:42:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/?p=547#comment-3274</guid>
		<description>"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."

“Vitamin C, being necessary to a healthy immune system, should be consumed every day.”

The two are far from parallel. Here would be a better example:

“Vitamin C, being necessary to a healthy immune system, the right of the people to eat food should not be infringed.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>“Vitamin C, being necessary to a healthy immune system, should be consumed every day.”</p>
<p>The two are far from parallel. Here would be a better example:</p>
<p>“Vitamin C, being necessary to a healthy immune system, the right of the people to eat food should not be infringed.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeffsdeepthoughts</title>
		<link>http://micahtillman.com/2008/07/17/two-mistakes-people-make-re-the-2nd-amendment/#comment-3272</link>
		<dc:creator>jeffsdeepthoughts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:52:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://micahtillman.com/?p=547#comment-3272</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure I'm keeping up with your reasoning.  From where I sit, it seems to me the phrase about the  "well armed militia" explains exactly why it is a right.  I guess I'm curious what this phrase is doing if it's not justifying the reason for this right.
I suppose it puts the right to bear arms in a somewhat unique category.  Most of the other rights listed in the bill of rights don't get much in the way of explanation for why they are rights.  And giving a reason for why it is a right seems to create some tension with the idea that rights are inalieble.  (Wow, did I murder the spelling on that word or what?) But if I said
"Vitamin C, being necessary to a healthy immune system, should be consumed every day" We would reasonably infer that the reason we should consume Vitamin C is because it is necessary to the immune system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;m keeping up with your reasoning.  From where I sit, it seems to me the phrase about the  &#8220;well armed militia&#8221; explains exactly why it is a right.  I guess I&#8217;m curious what this phrase is doing if it&#8217;s not justifying the reason for this right.<br />
I suppose it puts the right to bear arms in a somewhat unique category.  Most of the other rights listed in the bill of rights don&#8217;t get much in the way of explanation for why they are rights.  And giving a reason for why it is a right seems to create some tension with the idea that rights are inalieble.  (Wow, did I murder the spelling on that word or what?) But if I said<br />
&#8220;Vitamin C, being necessary to a healthy immune system, should be consumed every day&#8221; We would reasonably infer that the reason we should consume Vitamin C is because it is necessary to the immune system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
