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 13:24:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1746 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Maybe that's my stalling point. As a pseudointellectual dissector of
texts (ie, English Lit. major) I have huge problems in applying "intent" to
the meanings of works. In fiction, authorial intent is all but irrelevant;
it may be different in real-world writings.
> To me that means anything man portable.
The first time I read that summation from you (many months ago) I was sort
of surprised by it, and, at that time, it made me re-think my assessment of
you as a wacko gun-nut Libertarian zealot. Of course, I realize now that at
least the "gun-nut" part was in accurate! 8^)
What's your basis for the "man portable" criterion? I agree with it, but
I'd like to have a nice way to encapsulate it.
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
|
|
|
|
