To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17824
17823  |  17825
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 16:25:56 GMT
Viewed: 
5164 times
  
Pushing the envelope of "acceptable" subject divergence...

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:

> 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.

  That makes sense.  In terms of fiction, if Joe Author says "what I meant
here was this..." then I don't give a hoot; if it's not in the text, then
it's not in the text.  That's why, for example, the film "Attack of the
Clones" is a woefully dull story regardless of what may or may not be in the
Salvatore novel.

> 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.

  Yeah, that is a quandary.  I'm bored to tears by arguments that "words
don't really mean anything."  I mean, no kidding, right?  There isn't some
Divine List of Words somewhere; it's all degrees of social convention, so
let's just get on with it.

> > 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.

> 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)

  I like that definition.

     Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
 
(...) I don't like the idea of folks just running around with nukes and contagions unchecked. But I'm not willing to say that the 2nd only applies to man-portable arms. If we agree that the point is to enable The People to revolt, then it seems (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: For Those That *Don't Get* the 2nd Amendement (was Re: Those stupid liberal)
 
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR