 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
[snip] (...) I absolutely agree with this. [snip] (...) Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is a fundamental right. Without said right all other fundamental rights are unenforceable. Let me put it this way (again); A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about TJ speaking about a Creator in the DoI? -John (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Aren't we a little more mature than this? 'He who carries the biggest stick rules the sandbox...'? I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns. It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things, such (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am. I'm able bodied, male, a citizen and have had training on how to use my gun. That's what well regulated militia meant when those words were chosen. (...) Asked and answered, long long ago. Read the federalist papers instead of getting (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about having a very limited understanding of TJ's beliefs? This has been asked and answered before, John. It's pretty tiresome of you to bring it up again. TJ could have said "prime mover" -- it's just a whole lot less zippy (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) PS I don't think able bodied or male are still legitimate requirements, although they may have made sense back then. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) So stipulated. But the hypothetical loony[1] who lives down the street from me received no such training, but he nonetheless owns a shack full of guns. (...) Oh sure--*now* you clarify... Seriously though, I've never been to clear on why the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) fundamental (...) Let (...) The unabriged 2nd amendment is as follows: A well regulated militia being nessesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole well regulated (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, Richard, it hasn't. I am not arguing that TJ was a Christian or any such thing. What I am saying is that he acknowledged a Creator-- Prime Mover, God, Nature's God-- whatever you want to call it. And it is from this entity that our (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *My* Creator [sic] is a one-word summation of the process of evolution and, more directly, of human biological reproduction. I can point you to various links explaining how my mother and father conceived me, but I expect from your previous (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
John: You are looking at past history and past rhetoric with blinders on. Part of The Enlightenment project was to break with the "divine right of kings." That's why there is language of that type floating around. I am not saying that there weren't (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The value of the dollar was once based on the value of gold. It is now based on absolutely nothing but the will of the people to keep it going. Similarly, our "inalienable rights" were originally based on the commonly-held mythology of a God (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Regrettably, your argument is weakened by the fact that it matters a great deal to us all whether the dollar is backed by gold or not, whether you realise it or not. Try another analogy to make your main point, which I feel you are correct (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As Larry has pointed out already, this isn't exactly correct. The value of a U.S. dollar is statutory in law and has it's origins in Art.I Sect 10 of the Constitution. That the U.S. has the burden of producing Constitutional dollars is without (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That is your interpretation. That's good. Now we both can live with it. (...) How would you know-- you weren't there yet;-) (...) Neither is the pledge. Neither is our currency. (...) It may be *implicitly* Christian, but the actual wording (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How can you idolize your interpretation of the "intent" of Thomas Jefferson while one simultaneously ignoring the express "intent" of Eisenhower, who declared that "under God" would be a daily proclamation by children to God the Almighty? That (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am merely looking at the actual documents themselves as they would appear to someone who wasn't aware of their author's intentions. Thus, I take "Creator" to be a reference to God, you take it as evolution (how inalienable rights stem from (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Here it is, in terms as simple as I am able to formulate, in the hope that--against all prior evidence--you will be able to formulate a rational conclusion: P1: According to the 1st Amendment, Congress has no right to issue any declaration of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Gee, Dave! we simpletons shur 'preshiate when you smart folk done make it easy-like fer us to understand;-) (...) "Congress shall pass no laws respecting religion or the free exercise thereof;..." What do you mean by "issue any declaration"? (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) To no avail, apparently. Your inability to reason is invulnerable. (...) What do you want to hear, John? That "their Creator" should be stripped frm the Declaration of Independence? Fine, I certainly support that. As Dave K has correctly (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't like to see John stating his own opinions as facts either, esp. when much of what he has to say is contrary to the facts as understood and accepted by the rest of us. The Constitution trumps all other laws. Even the preamble is not (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What exactly do you mean by that? That all of *yours* are indeed *fact*? The FACT is that the POA stands-- defending it one way or the other is opinion. But I am willing to drop the whole issue until it is decided by the SC. But I know that if (...) (22 years ago, 14-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Despite my better Judgement I am going to get sucked into this debate. (If only to prove to Dave! that someone who belives God created the universe is capable of rational thought.) (...) First off John, I want to make it perfectly clear that I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Mine is. My respect for your right to swing your fist around stops just short of my nose, as the old saying goes. Put another way, I can tolerate anything except intolerance. ++Lar (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I am only responding to this one part because after reading Larry's reply it occurred to me that this part is intended as a kind of snare -- frankly, a rather lame one at that. I am tolerant of others' views unconditionally -- that is to say (...) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Watch out... Mike has judgement with a capital J! :-) (...) Yes, well said. Glad to see at least one christian gets it. Thank you. (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *cough* 2 Christians *cough*... Dave K (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "at least 1" is logically equivalent to "2", in this context anyway. :-) (22 years ago, 15-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) LOL! Well obviously that was a typo. Funny none the less. (...) we (...) Contrary to popular belief, believing in God does not automatically make a person incapable of seeing things from other perspectives. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: TJ acknowledged a Creator in DoI (was: Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, but it helps ;-) --Bill. (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No! Mike is exactly right. (...) I can't say this nicely, so I'll just say it. That attitude makes you sound like a goon. So things are made right merely by being law? Like when it was legal to own people of recent African decent? When my (...) (22 years ago, 17-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Obeying the law as a general policy doesn't preclude civil disobedience to unjust laws. It needn't be all-or-nothing. (...) For me it's not the guns so much as the ticket books and handcuffs. :-) Actually, I obey most laws just because they (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My attitude makes me sound like a goon? What kind of goon? A gun toting yahoo goon? You're right--there's no way to say this nicely--anyone who believes the brainless rhetoric that the NRA and Heston spout out of their mouths--'Outta my cold (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What exactly does this mean? I happen to think that owning, knowing how to operate, and keeping weapons in good functioning order is a predicate to a free society -- yes, including and particularly, guns. It may be trite but: freemen bear (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Quoteth Dave K (quoting dictionary): goon: a thug hired to commit acts of violence or intimidation (usually with a gun) The last time the NRA won some sort of whatever, there was numerous newsclips of Heston holding up a gun, saying 'outta my (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The kind who is an authority apologist. The same kind as Scott Arthur when he says the very same thing. I don't care how much you want to dress it up; what you are implying is that you would follow laws that demand unjust or immoral action (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yup. A very valuable one. (...) I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but if not, then we agree. The pinnacle of civilization _is_ the understanding the the power (all of it...the ultimate power of military projection as well as the power of (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> *cough* POA *cough* Baah--stupid acronyms! AFAIC, and IMHO, who needs 'em! Just causes lots of snafu's! ;) Dave K (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "The rules have changed. True power is held by the person who possesses the largest bookshelf, not gun cabinet or wallet." (...) Have you been watching Fox News again? ;) The average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Nowhere in my postings did I *ever* imply that. I will reiterate--it is *not* because of the guns the police officers have, but because it's the law, that I obey the law. You are putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the equation. I don't (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The US Constitution is designed to ensure a reasonably fair government that doesn't have too much power over the people. But if that were to break down, the 2nd Amendment is there to provide the people a last- ditch method of regaining the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Huh? Guns are not drugs. Drugs are only one aspect to crime. And crime has nothing to do with freedom. Do you think banning guns will make criminals turn in their weapons? No way. There will always be some guns in the country, and there's (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If the US gov't were to break down, laws are irrelevant, and we're back to... who said it, Lock, Hobbes? can't remember polisci 101 (such a long time ago)...'natural law' or, as I like to think of it, 'He who has the biggest stick, rules' The (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
David: What William has stated is more or less the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but it also goes back to feudal times. Freemen bear arms -- it's a right and a responsibility. Read "The Federalist Papers". If you disagree, fine. Just stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Let me say it again, but more concisely: Only an armed population can fight back against a totalitarian regime. The 2nd amendment is meant to allow the population to be armed for just this reason. Yes, if democracy failed and a totalitarian regime (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Quoteth Dave (...) and (...) and so many other locations--which part in my posting makes you think that *I* think the 2nd was written less than 20 years ago. If there's someone being misrepresented in this thread, I'm your guy. (...) And (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And in a fledging new democratic country, I can see why you would need that kind of ammendment. However, 1776 was a very long time ago. It's 2002. Your country has grown up into democracy and found out that--well looky that--it works without (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Like the Taliban controlled Afganistan for example. Never mind that the whole point of the MILITARY and POLICE carring guns openly was to make sure that the citizens were unarmed and in fear for their lives. There is a reason that the 3 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It's a Democratic Republic. There is a difference. (...) This is such a lame statement it barely merits response, I just wanted to call it to your attention. It's just as bad as: "America: love it or leave it." Too lame. (...) This is a fairly (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The United States is a democratic republic. Fine, no problem--never said it wasn't--I said the way to get things changed is thru democracy, the process in which the people *vote*. (...) "Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't have a lot to contribute to this debate, but this idea is invariably introduced at some point, and it needs careful examination. The problem with the statistic you've cited is that it is *very* difficult to establish a causative (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It depends what you mean by "fight". If it means oppose through force of arms, then you are correct. Obviously. If you mean only an armed population can rid themselves of a totalitarian regime, then I think you are wrong. Look at the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against tyranny. (...) The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the Confederate (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You're right. One should try and change things from within the system. This is why those who don't agree with the current government and truly care about our nation are trying to work within the system. The purpose of enabling the free (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part covers that. [...] (...) As long as democratic institutions are still working then it isn't time for a revolution. But when the right to vote gets taken away (e.g. an election (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Okay, I need to remember this: the reason Koudys doesn't have an informed opinion about U.S. issues is because he isn't an interested party. David, I would kindly ask you to stop discussing what you don't know and doesn't matter to you anyway. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I fear you are misrepresenting my views. I can't think of any law that I view as "immoral", but I can list a few that I view as being "unjust" to me. However, I share this island with a lot of other people, and I am polite enough to respect (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) to (...) But it's typical to assume that the factors which multiple study venues (in this case) fail to have in common are most likely trivial in their causative power when compared to a single factor that is common across the study. If a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or set of ideas can (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Are you saying that the Democrats would have made the same mistakes as the Republicans over the past 12 months and before? I'm yet to be convinced of that. Bush is governing by paranoia, I doubt AG would have done the same. (...) That is an (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You're very good at the off-handed put-down aren't you--'doesn't have an informed opinion'? I think I'm just as informed as you. I took my poli-sci courses in university (tho a long time ago to be sure) and I read the articles that people post (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) First, it's your *elected* gov't. Due to screwups that people are trying to sweep under the carpet, and others are trying to *not* sweep under the carpet... is a wee bit of a fiasco. If every Florida citizen petitioned to have a revote, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who can say? These guys are all ultimately poll-driven centrists -- it's just that the Bushes are also pointedly oil-obsessed, war-gods. (...) Hmmm, this is all very debatable. The lynching isn't widespread or performed without fear of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I did not mean to imply life is perfect for these groups - it is not anywhere near it. However, it has improved over the last 25 years in my view. (...) Yes. (...) I agree. I read this powerful quote in a Guardian letter today: "Beware (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) One political science course? Well then, yes. (...) See, this is the part that just seems incredibly myopic if not just plain ignorant to anyone with any sense of world history and of U.S. history in particular. Y'know, those guys in the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It was the fact that they did not have guns that gave them power. If they had guns, some guy like bush would have called them "terrorists". (...) Is the Crucible not about the government/capitalist induced hysteria which led to McCarthy being (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Well, it was a minor but--semantics--irrelevant to the discussion at hand. An *opinion*, a voice, a discourse is *protected* by the 1st. If I don't like your opinion--my tough cookies, just as if you don't like mine--your tough cookies. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) Holy Hannah! I better start doing these things by e-mail instead of thru the web interface--sooo many type-o's in my last reply. My bad. Sorry 'bout that. I'll endeavour to proofread (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Actually, German Americans were interred also, here's one quick link: (URL) here's one about Italian internment: (URL) the way, these were the 1st links Google showed for +german +internment and +italian +internment I haven't read these sites (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Larry is absolutely right on this. The system is set up to make it difficult for marginal parties to grow. Essentially, if you wish to gain any power, you need to subvert one of the existing parties through infilteration. The question is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) We put the Dot.Coms up against the wall! Telephone solicitors are next! Comrade Bruce Glorious Democratic Republic of Socialistic Libertarian Greens Where Everyone is Equal Except for Those of Us Who Drive Really Big German Cars and have T10 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Gerrymandering? Brought up in this thread? Like h-e-double hockey sticks they have, Larry... Do a search in this *entire* thread and show me, up until this post of yours, when (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Sign me up for that! Darn solicitors--thank you but I already have one more credit card than I need (have a grande total of 1) I don't need any more newspaper subscriptions, I don't need my carpet cleaned, I don't need your magazine! Stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I was just thinking, this last bit is the answer to the claim that we are stick on an outdated piece of paper. If the 2nd really is not appropriate as originally intended, then lets change it. The Constitution tells us how to change it. If a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "here" == lugnet.off-topic.debate not merely this particular thread. Our republic is broken, at least to some extent, I gave you 3 examples of why, out of many many many more possible ones. That's completely on topic to where this thread is (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's a reasonable objection, but I think the essential point remains regardless of my incomplete and anecdotal listing, especially remembering the fact that previous debates here have been disembowelled by pointing out that "correlation (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) So an armed citizenry is not an implied threat? (...) You are completely missing the point. When (not if) the government becomes corrupt to the point that it is no longer a democracy, it is time for the people to invoke their second amendment (...) (22 years ago, 21-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'm not going to look back through all the notes you've written in response a note that I've written to find it, but I'm pretty sure that you responded that you would seek to change the law from within "the system" rather than breaking it, if (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Wow, wouldn't *that* be interesting? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Would guns truly have made a beneficial difference? Or would it have made the students seem like armed combatants who deserved whatever they got? I expect that it would depend on how the press chose to spin it, but at the very least it would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) see also: (URL) article is about forking and revolutionary change within the open source context, but it applies to all systems... high barriers to entry imply more likeliehood of revolution rather than gradual change... and the duopoly of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, we up here have, as of today anyway, 5 'official' parties-- Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Party Bloc Quebecuois Alliance (a la Reform) And what's going to continue to happen up here in Canada is that the Liberals are (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
have you realized this "Caesar" thing is a made-up quote that has been going around for many months? It's like the amusing but fake Nostradamus saying about the "village idiot." -Erik (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Good luck! I did a Google search for that apocryphal Caesar quote and got 1180 hits! It's a well-established pious fraud, as firmly entrenched as the Sarah Brady's "completely disarmed" false citation or Dan Quayle's "Latin America" fictional (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Was Nostradamus able to predict this? ;) Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) *That's* an interesting point! I'm sure Ms. Weaver, his son, and his dog would consider the incident less than "productive," but as an object lesson to the rest of us, your argument has some merit. (...) Ditto in this case, too. I guess it's (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Right. But even to Mr. Weaver, the situation might be preferable to spending 15 years in a federal prison with no one knowing about it. I don't know him. (...) In response to the cop and gun thing or long term? He ran away once he defused the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) **Alert** I used 'your' many times in the following post--they are not directed at Chris at all--just wrapping up, I hope, in one complete posting a bunch of different points made in this thread. If you could read the words, "you" or "your" as (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Of course Caesar spoke latin, so it isn't a direct quote. But how do you know it's false? But in any case, I changed my .signature to not have that quote anymore. --Bill. (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No, not close, in fact completely wrong. The 2nd says "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." [snip] (...) If you bother to read... (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout that--but now that you (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars, you may want (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It says "the security of a free state", not "the maintaining of a free state from internal tyrants" or even "securing a free state". It's a long reach to place your interpretation on the law as written. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Some questions from down under... In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated militia? (...) But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As you know, I only ask the same question more than once when someone is avoiding answering it. After all, if the question has been answered, what is the point in asking it again? Scott A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Yeah, really! What I find annoying is the refusal of some people to do their own homework (i.e ANY reading at all). I think the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is actually fairly clear, although at this precise moment in time it may be wished (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) militia? Well, I think the duty part is Larry's opinion. One that I vaguely share, but I certainly wouldn't hold people to. It's just that we think more highly of people who fully participate in the way of American governance. There are lots (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I always thought you were disingenuously pretending that the questions weren't answered either because you don't like the answer that was given or as a rhetorical technique to convince your readers that your opponent in the debate is a fool. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, but Mike's interpretation is supported by a thousand documents from the time. Why are you folks arguing this? If you don't want guns in America, change the constitution (if we let you :-). But what it means is really clear. Chris (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) 1776!! Rip up that scrap of paper and give yourself a constitution which reflects the needs and aspirations of your countrywo/men today - not what may (or may not) have existed 200+ years ago. ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) On a relatined point, has this ever been overturned: If you scroll down to "THESECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: ==+== "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Me either. Duty needs to be taken on voluntarily. It may get you extra privs, but it shouldn't be forced. (...) (reins... a reign is just exactly what we want to prevent! :-) all hail Emperor George II and his visier, Dick ) (...) Snipped the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) the evidence has been weighed. Snopes.com and wikipedia.com have both surveyed their experts and as snopes says "come up empty." In the first place, it smelled funny. The quote itself is so narrow-minded and subsitutes emotions for (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
*if* I were a critical thinker (which I'm so obviously not)... Oh, before I start, thanks Richard for actually taking the respond with proof, instead of just "you're wrong..." with no backup. (...) I wanna score points with the regulars? Anywhere (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My dad got called in for jury duty--first question--"Mr Koudys, what's your take on capital punishment?" My dad said "Hang the b***ard" "Thank you Mr. Koudys, you may go home now..." I got a letter saying that I had to fill out a form to be (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If you want to move onto later claims, that's another story. (...) Is this addressed to me or the board in general? If me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Scott, that would be truly insane... ...trust the people that put Bush in the White House and have supported him through all the other BS?! Would you trust Blair to rework how your civil liberties work? Not on your life, man. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) That's not what I said. (...) Blair's OK, he's just a little power mad. If you look close enough, you can see it in his eyes... Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Absolutely true. Someone in this thread said a while back that *any* change to the foundational principles of US law would have to follow the *process* that is currently in place to get such a change made. He said that it is the *process* that (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I was being a little brash, my point was that perhaps it should be updated to reflect the nature of life today. I doubt TJ foresaw the nature of modern weaponry. (...) lol Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do. Chris (...) clear. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
David: I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this is just one long troll for you. Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too. Bruce (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not. (...) And in each and every instance you quoted, I looked at the entire quote, and found that I read it differntly than you. I pointed out it should be interpreted, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And sometimes, when we've been talking about something for sooo long, we get to a pause in the conversation, we look around, and we ask-- "What were we discussing again?" (psst--LEGO and how much fun it is!!!! :) ) Who here loves LEGO? Me! (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Then keep reading starting with the many links I have already provided -- convincing you isn't my job. I keep talking about context and legislative intent and you want to argue about words from specific quotes -- taken out of context! I am (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) The point I just made to Bruce stands here too. You don't get to use "common, everyday english". The phrase "well regulated militia" does not mean what you think it does. It means what it meant then, with the meanings of the words as they were (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) Oh if only wishing made it so. Out of context? Where? Not one reply, rebuttal, refute, nada... Everything I laid out followed a very logically made construct, not of *my* making, but of your founding fathers making. I choose to read *all* the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Bzzt. LEGO(r) is off topic for this group. :-) (...) Me too but that's irrelevant. (22 years ago, 24-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> (...) Thanks for calling me on that Larry--it was a litle over the top--we get too close sometimes. And I will recant the other slaps in the face as well. My apologies. (...) Not trying to. (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) For the first time today, I laughed out loud. Thanks ++Lar FUT to which LEGO on-topic group?? Dave K. (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really. I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would be his (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Voluntary duty? I think that's a contradiction by any normal definition of 'duty'. Paraphrasing from Merriam Webster... - conduct due to parents and superiors - obligatory tasks that arise from one's position - a moral or legal obligation (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Check. OK, how about a "duty" that it's OK to shirk, but that if you don't shirk, gets you something extra, some privilege (I just can't spell that word!) you'd normally not get. (c.f. _Starship Troopers_ in which only those that served in the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I wonder how this does/would work in practice. Regulation of an armed body by individuals would not appear to be too effective. For instance, do you see, in a time of crisis in the US, a militia sponteneously arising from its citizenry, and, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Fair enough. Duty is not the word I would have chosen, but I would more or less agree with you on this, although I'm not sure that attaching something extra or some privilege is appropriate. (...) I've seen terms defined on LUGNET which are a (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Depends on who you ask. Most judges will tell you it is not your place as a juror to weigh the justness of the law, that your duty is only to the validity and applicability of the facts and that you have no power to judge (nullify) law. (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hey, that's neat! Do you know if this has happened in a major case in modern times? Dave! (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)
|
|
(...) Speaking of faulty notions... Name me one country, past or present, where ONLY the police and armed services were allowed to have guns, that is NOT a dictatorship. -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) What the...?! Dave!, you have taken part in these discussion about Jury nullification before -- I have to assume you know all about it. Search "Jury nullification" in this newsgroup, both Larry and I have discussed it many times before (...) (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 fairness, England must be damned close to total gun control. I know it's not total but lack the details -- perhaps Scott or someone else can supply further details. While seeing what google would cough up on it, I found this: (URL) is from (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
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 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
(...) GM may not be making hovercars, but the good people at Moller certainly are. (URL) know this link's been posted before, because somebody made a Lego version of the Skycar. Adrian (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal))
|
|
(...) I could argue that, but we're in the wrong place for it now. ;p (...) Don't forget the infamous Moller Air Car: (URL) the US Mil, in the incarnation of NARPA is funding exoskeleton research to the tune of mumble mumble million $$. In my fairly (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what the greater crime is; the fact that they happily relinquished a civil liberty, or the fact that they are not likely going to get it back. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Who has the biggest gun, perhaps? Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword (was Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it aga
|
|
(...) Here's the snopes link: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 27-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) Scott, I think, has accepted that this is a bogus quote, if he ever even believe it in the first place. Sadly, some celebrities are less eager to check their sources: (URL) Dave! (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Still a "Funny Girl"
|
|
(...) -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 2-Oct-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
