 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | (...) 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! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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! —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | 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! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | 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: Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | (...) Who has the biggest gun, perhaps? Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys
|
| | | | *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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) 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) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | 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) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Big things (was Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | 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)) —Adrian Drake
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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)) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) 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: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) 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) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
