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 16:03:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1783 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
I hear you. And if person X says "this is what person Y meant" I tend to
discount that. Especially if it's some time later.
But if person X says "this is what *I* meant when I wrote this 2 months ago"
I tend to give that a lot of credence. And I'm not the only one that does,
so did the US Supreme court, which cited from the Federalist Papers too, in
the early days, unless I'm totally imagining that part.
Now, arguably, if we were writing a new constitution in this day and age
we'd no doubt do it all nice and electronic with lots of hyperlinking to
additional exposition, definitions etc etc., ne?
But we still have a context problem... how do you actually define a word?
You have to use other words to do it. Unless you're dealing with something
concrete where you can display examples, you may be stuck in a regression.
And most of the interesting words in a constitution (but not "arms") are
more conceptual than concrete.
> > 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.
I don't know. It seems a reasonable line. If you go beyond it you get into
private armies rather than militias (in the original sense).
"me and my buddies bought this B1 on the aftermarket and we're OK to own it
and also this refueling tanker we got... Oh, and these nuclear tipped cruise
missiles, think we're gonna go blow up some Argentinians, their beef tastes
funny"
I don't think so. The point is to have weapons that can resist the
projection of force against you, not to project force against others (and in
that made up example, drag the US into a war, possibly)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
