Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 23:07:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1651 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > I guess I misunderstood. But unfortunately, I still do.
> >
> > That's too cryptic for me. Guess I'll have to misunderstand you, too.
>
> Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this:
>
> > You weren't paying attention to earlier messages. The law *as written*. If
> > you want to move onto later claims, that's another story
>
> I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact
> words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which
> expand and explain what the clauses mean.
>
> Is that correct?
No - it would seem close and I understand you thinking that, but not really.
I merely wish to establish one thing before moving on to the next. If Joe
Blow walking down the street suddenly spotted the 2nd Amendment, what would
be his interpretation? There are no explanations appended within the law.
I am not debating the wisdom, pro or con, of relying on any later
explanations or interpretations. I guess I'm objecting to claims that the
law says something it doesn't. If the claim was "this is what the law
*really* was supposed to mean, and here's why" it would be a different point
(and one I might agree with).
I'm of the opinion that the 2nd amendment was meant to allow the citizens
unfettered access to firearms (as much as I think Joe Blow is a moron and
should have to pass a safety course). No, you don't have to be a member of
a militia to have firearms - you need the firearms already in order to form
the militia successfully. I am not relying on any ex-post facto
explanation, nor do I feel one is one necessary (unless you feel the need to
tinker with it, and then you need to understand it fully so that you don't
break it unintentionally).
>
> If that's what you mean I'm not sure it's a tenable position. Even if we
> ignore the supporting and explanatory writings specifically, we still have
> to have some way of determining context. For example, in Dave K.s misguided
> nonrebuttal of Richard's excellent set of cites, he uses dictionary
> definitions of words to claim the 2nd says something different. But he's
> using MODERN definitions of words like regulated and militia.
I don't agree with Dave K's interpretation, as you may discern from the above.
What did "regulated" mean in the late 1700's? Drilled? Practiced with
their weapons? Possessing a formal heirarchy of command? Obeying the
commands of government?
>
> We know, from other writings of the time (not necessarily the supporting
> ones) that the modern meanings are not the same as the meanings then. We
> have to use the meanings of the time to interpret (and court opinions, when
> they are not being revisionist, do just this research into contemporary
> meanings of words) the writings. If we cannot use anything else we might as
> well give up.
This is a legitimate need for interpretation.
>
> Just define "war is peace" and "slavery is freedom" and be done with it!
Ignorance is strength. All these are true, after their own self-serving
fashion. :-)
> BTW, you're wasting your breath arguing with Scott. Everyone already knows
> the truth of the points you're making about his style and has for years.
> Just ignore him.
Oh....I know that. Scott has some points worth making, I just think he
loses sight of the forest through the trees. I mean, why the heck is it our
responsibility to attack Iraq? On Bush's say so? Ahhhahahaha - that guy
was rejected by the people of the United States. He couldn't even win in
the electoral college cleanly, needing partisan voting by the bagmen Daddy
Oilbucks appointed to the Supreme Court. He has presented no compelling
evidence to either the UN or the American people. I'm expecting claims that
Iraq to attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin any moment now. :-)
I think he would be a fool to proceed unilaterally. Didn't he pay any
attention to Viet Nam? Why make a martyr out of Saddam, of all people?
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| Much snippage (...) It's in the federalist papers (which I would argue, since they are by the authors of the constitution and which are contemporaneous, ARE valid as a way to gauge meaning and intent) but I forget exactly. I don't think it's any of (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Let me try... I don't know about Chris, but I personally misunderstood this: (...) I'm taking it to mean that you think we have to use the constitution's exact words only and not any contemporaneous writings by the same authors which expand (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
