 | | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
(...) Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I can't get too deep (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) You know, I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic here, or not. Certainly mocking, but your target is ambiguous. If you honestly feel the link I posted is worse than useless, why not just say so? James (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) What? I don't get it. So, like a chess game, after a certain number of similar moves, it must end. I'm done here. O wait, you mean I wasn't playing chess? It wasn't clever or interesting? It wasn't even a stalemate? I don't even know what I am (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
|
Here is the quote part: "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." This could just as easily read: Because a free state must protect itself (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) It makes a handy and compelling virtual stick to beat unreasonable people with? And at times, pretty much everyone in here is guilty of unreasoning. Certainly the strong disconnect between reasons and conclusions has been observed here, in (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(...) Interesting article but I couldn't tell what it was you thought were doing when you cited it. :-) Or why it's a must read. The people that would benefit from reading it won't do so or won't understand the point it makes. :-) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
The following post of James's is off-topic for debate. :-) But it's neat anyway. XFUT geek Let's see, we have John Deere prototyping walker/spider timber harvesters, and Caterpillar prototyping mechs. What's next? GM showing hovercars? Turboprop (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | This should be required reading for this group...
|
|
(URL) there an off-topic curator? This article should be in the .debate sidebar. IMHO, of course. :) James (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) But regulation doesn't mean directing. The militia doesn't need government direction, that's what the army is for (even if it shouldn't be). (...) I expect that a chain of command of some kind would evolve. (...) Each of us. (...) There isn't (...) (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)
|
|
(...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
