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 12:49:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1716 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
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 means anything man portable. (up to and including mechs :-)...
see Real Life a while back where Tony and the New Girl duke it out in mechs
they built out of scrap computer cases they melted down)
> Your point's not wrong, but we need a careful consideration of when the
> historical definitions are to have precedence over the current usage.
I would agree with that.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
