To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17521
17520  |  17522
Subject: 
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:18:40 GMT
Viewed: 
888 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:

So you are part of a well regulated militia are you?

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.

  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.

PS I don't think able bodied or male are still legitimate requirements,
although they may have made sense back then.

  Oh sure--*now* you clarify...

  Seriously though, I've never been to clear on why the "intent" of the
founders is at all relevant, and I'm not being flippant.  If anything,
Jefferson's intent was that we not enshrine his intent as sacrosanct, and I
believe he was correct in that regard.  The other, more textual problem, is
that ten people can read Jefferson's words and come away with fifteen
interpretations of his "intent," just as we've seen here, when one poster
all but insists that Jefferson meant the US to be The Nation of God.
  I'm not even addressing propriety of allowing free ownership of guns,
since that's an issue that really stands or falls on the facts of the time.
But I think it's a mistake to invest too much time in tailoring reality to
the interpretation, rather than vice versa.

     Dave!

[1] I suppose he's hypothetical, but you never know.  Anyway, I'm clearly
introducing a second issue here, which is how one's mental competency should
factor in to the "well regulated" clause.  Should it?  I certainly think so,
but I don't know if I'm on solid legal footing in making that claim.  Thoughts?



Message is in Reply To:
  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)

220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR