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 / 22524
22523  |  22525
Subject: 
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:34:18 GMT
Viewed: 
1000 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
   Well, as Hop-Frog has pointed out numerous times, our founding fathers stated quite clearly when asked that a militia was anyone that is not a government offical.

That’s true, and more than once I went to great lengths to make the point crystal clear too, with lots of historical references:

2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones

And gee, that cite is not even that old...last year.

I find it annoying when a debate regular like Kooties wants to start into this area of debate at square one each and every time as if the matter had not been amply settled previously.

I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree on the gun issue -- Kooties has every right to abhor gun ownership and argue for change in that area. I am less happy that he refuses to use legislative and historical intent to define the plain meanings of the 2nd and 9th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. If anything, I should think that more modern conceptions of rights should expand and not further limit our civil liberties.

What annoys is where Kooties wants to argue something like: “a tomato is not a fruit” when it plainly is a fruit. We get stuck circling around the definition of words as if that were the arument itself, but doing so brings nothing new into evidence -- Kooties rejects the plain meaning of Constitutional language, and we insist on it’s plain meaning. Big whoop!

This is asked and answered on both sides. I don’t want to spoil anyone’s fun, but is there anything new here to discuss?

-- Hop-Frog



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
 
(...) It hasn't been amply settled. You are not a well regulated militia by any standard of those words. It's a point you consitently avoid--you and others cut right to the "the rights of the people to own guns shall not be infringed" Further, you (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
 
(...) Well, as Hop-Frog has pointed out numerous times, our founding fathers stated quite clearly when asked that a militia was anyone that is not a government offical. (...) Perhaps that is the modern day definition, but what does that have to do (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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
    

Custom Search

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