Subject:
|
Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:29:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1594 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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*.
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 argued that "arms" refers to flintlock muskets and says nothing
about Black Talon "cop-killer" rounds, for example.
Your point's not wrong, but we need a careful consideration of when the
historical definitions are to have precedence over the current usage.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
