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 21:55:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1664 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > David:
> >
> > I am trying hard to respect your words, but I get the funny idea that this
> > is just one long troll for you.
>
>
> Well, you could choose to call my opinion 'trolling', however, I know I'm not.
>
> > Either that or you have some kind of blinders on over this particular
> > subject. Those quotes were just the tip of the iceberg -- there are dozens
> > of such statements, Federalist and Anti-Federalist, the explain precisely
> > what rights were assumed to exist and which were worthy of being protected
> > in the Bill of Rights.
>
> 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, using common, everyday english, and yet, no refutation--just
> "You're not intelligent enuf to get it..."
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 *then*, not the meanings of the words *now*.
Several of the quotes you were given directly addressed what the words were
intended to mean. I'm not sure you've made the case that we should use
modern meanings.
Further, the phrase ends in a comma. Therefore it's a justification for the
right, not the right itself. So even if you *could* show that it's false on
the face of it, you haven't shown that the 2nd doesn't guarantee every
freeman the right to bear any man portable armament he cares to procure.
You're merely on the way to showing that maybe the 2nd should be changed. As
it's written now, it does. And it was intended to, it wasn't an accident.
The founding fathers said so. The fact that a modern supreme court decided
to get revisionistic on it and interpret things incorrectly doesn't dilute
what the intent was, just what the defacto interpretation has become.
As for going on about pro 2nd amendment people worshipping at the temple of
guns and violence, that's about as pejorative and useful as saying that all
christians are delusional, morally flawed, and incompetent to operate in
modern society. It might be true in your world view (just as the latter is
true in mine) but isn't going to advance the debate much as it will tend to
annoy the readers that you presumably want to convince.
Unless you're grandstanding, which of course is OK too.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
