 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
