 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
(...) Interesting note in reference to the Aliens Power Loader - Caterpillar actually built it, and it actually works. Well, sort of. The footage of the loader lifting heavy things and walking around with them is live footage - what they don't show (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
|
(...) And that means said foreign policy must be analyzed in a vacuum? Nonsense. You are doing so because it suits your purpose and you explanation is just an excuse. (...) What? Not even "facts" this time? (...) You didn't answer it before, and you (...) (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)
|
|
Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence... (...) That makes sense. In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then it's not in the text. That's why, for (...) (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)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Bring on the mechs!!! I would love to see a load lifter a la "Aliens" or an ED-209 (under human control, of course) stomping about! Dunno if all that Japanimation mech stuff is (...) (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 hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to discount that. Especially if it's some time later. But if person X says "this is what *I* meant when I wrote this 2 months ago" I tend to give that a lot of credence. And (...) (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)
|
|
(...) 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: 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)
|
| |
| | Medical Marijuana
|
|
From the LP newsletter I get, posted in its entireity... poses an interesting dilemna with respect to states rights and how far a state can go in deviating, and how far a state can go in resisting encroachment on states rights - start - Libertarians (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
