Subject:
|
Re: Description vs. argument
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:48:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > You remember that war, right? That's the war in which we threw off the yoke
> > > of the British oppressors. It was a war about freedom, after all. So it's
> > > not too surprising if you forget the little details about it since it wasn't
> > > one of the British Empire's brightest moments to have the starch beaten out
> > > of it by a ragtag band of patriots (patriots armed with the latest military
> > > technology of the time, but a militia, not an army.)
>
> The keyword is militia. My dictionary says:
>
> militia
> a military force which only operates for some of the time and whose members
> often have other jobs, used either instead of or to support the official army.
>
> I’d hate to get involved in semantics, but I do not think you have a militia.
>
> "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."
>
> Can a bunch guys with guns under their bed really be a militia?
>
> Scott A
>
>
> >
> > I happen to feel connected to this particular fight since I'm from the US, but
> > it's really not my favorite of these examples. I prefer the one where
> > Shaka, using nothing but spears and genius, routed the British army in Zululand
> > (South Africa). That's the best defeat, I think. Talk about
> > ragtag.
> >
> > Chris
Your dictionary is wrong, when viewed in the context of the US constitution.
Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what
militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said
it. Intent is difficult to judge but I tend to go by the claimed intent
described in the Federalist Papers, not with what some random lying around
the house (or Random House) dictionary has in it.
Left your whole post to demostrate to others that there was absolutely no
value in doing so, I could have as easily just snipped down to the germane
part I addressed.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my dictionary describes? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) The keyword is militia. My dictionary says: militia a military force which only operates for some of the time and whose members often have other jobs, used either instead of or to support the official army. I’d hate to get involved in (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
