 | | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant; it may be different in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Weirdly, the web view truncated this topic to just "Jocular self-deprecation judges are at it again!)" in the top five list on the right. Can that be fixed? It made me smile but other truncation may cause confusion. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) No, I don't think it can be creditably argued... again, the Federalist Papers are clear on this point, the intent was that arms means the best technology available at the time to armies, or better, if it was commercially available. To me that (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!)
|
|
Subject line changed in deference to Tom Stangl's request for topic purity! 8^) (...) Hey, give me a break--it was late! 8^0) Dave! FUT OT.fun (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) While I agree with the overall thrust of your argument, I think we need to be cautious with phrases like this one. If we're going to stick rigidly to the "back then" definitions of the language of The Constitution, then it can be credibly (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
