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 / 17754
17753  |  17755
Subject: 
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:13:10 GMT
Viewed: 
4482 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome
> > going round and round and round with you...<snip>...and it doesn't score you
> > any points with the regulars, you may want to stop.
> 
> 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 that the framers had used
> more precise and absolutely unequivocal language.  For those that doubt the
> meaning as intended by the framers of the Constitution I provide the
> following *beginners* list of points that has been checked against multiple
> sources -- argue against the meaning of the 2nd Amendment if you are so
> inclined, but let's stop arguing over the meaning of it regardless of what
> current authorities may claim to the contrary [N.B. an attempt has been made
> to cite URLs that would be deemed as carrying authority because of where
> they are hosted, but you can find all of these quotes in your local library
> too!]:
> 
> 00. The framers regularly used the terms army and militia, but not
> interchangably!  There is ample proof of this.
> 
> 01. "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]."
> wrote Thomas Jefferson in his proposed Virginia Constitution of 1776.

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



Message has 1 Reply:
  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 (24 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-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

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

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