Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:25:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1679 times
|
| |
|
|
Much snippage
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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?
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 those meanings, actually. I think it just means amply supplied. It
may mean practiced though, in the sense of "well regulated" meaning "a large
body of citizens who are good at using their arms". But I am not sure.
> 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?
Because he can? Seems screwy to me. Proceeding unilaterally is not going to
help. What I would like is a UN resolution that said:
"We really mean it this time. You *are* going to get inspected, the
inspectors are going to go wherever they want, whenever they want, and talk
to whoever they like without your people present, and you are not going to
get any notice. They will examine whatever they want and draw whatever
conclusions the evidence indicates. The whole thing will be done with the
media invited to attend (but without telling them apriori where we are going
so they can't rat us out) so the world can see.
Oh, and the inspectors will bring whatever equipment, guards, armaments etc,
that they think is needed to get it to stick.
This can either happen now, starting tomorrow, while you're still in power,
or it can happen after a multinational force has disassembled your power
structure by force. Your choice, there are no other choices, you've already
voided your claim to sovereignty long ago by your repressive actions...
And oh by the way, everyone else that's repressive better start watching
their backs as they may be next... ya we're talking to you Saudi Arabia"
Then I snap out of it because I don't want UN inspectors rooting around in
the UK's weapons program because someone got repressed by the National
Health in not getting their bunyon lanced fast enough. Or ours because of
John Ashcroft.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
