 | | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) From what I recall of history, the Zulus led by Shaka were anything but ragtag; they were an extremely well trained, organised and disciplined army consisting of men who had been taken into the army as boys and brought up in a military and (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Indeed. So what is the point of your system, if your "god given" rights can be removed the government? Are they only fair weather rights? (...) I know of no UK school which has a "whites only" policy in the last century. I know of no UK (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote: <Junk Science> (...) In this neck of the woods one will more often hear a reference to "pseudoscience" or perhaps even sophistry; that is, arguments which generally appear reasonably plausable, logical or convincing at a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Oh...well if that's all it takes, then I can dispel your assertions by mentioning that there are a few blacks at the highest levels of US government too. Great. (...) them? Their rights did protect them. But bad men in the government -- the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Is that like Lar += 2? :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (24 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 (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
