Subject:
|
Re: Description vs. argument
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:26:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1243 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > > You remember that war, right? That's the war in which we threw off the yoke
> > > > of the British oppressors. It was a war about freedom, after all. So it's
> > > > not too surprising if you forget the little details about it since it wasn't
> > > > one of the British Empire's brightest moments to have the starch beaten out
> > > > of it by a ragtag band of patriots (patriots armed with the latest military
> > > > technology of the time, but a militia, not an army.)
> >
> > The keyword is militia. My dictionary says:
> >
> > militia
> > a military force which only operates for some of the time and whose members
> > often have other jobs, used either instead of or to support the official army.
> >
> > I’d hate to get involved in semantics, but I do not think you have a militia.
> >
> > "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
> > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
> >
> > Can a bunch guys with guns under their bed really be a militia?
> >
> > Scott A
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I happen to feel connected to this particular fight since I'm from the US, but
> > > it's really not my favorite of these examples. I prefer the one where
> > > Shaka, using nothing but spears and genius, routed the British army in Zululand
> > > (South Africa). That's the best defeat, I think. Talk about
> > > ragtag.
> > >
> > > Chris
>
> Your dictionary is wrong, when viewed in the context of the US constitution.
I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you
do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some
states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my
dictionary describes?
>
> Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what
> militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said
> it. Intent is difficult to judge but I tend to go by the claimed intent
> described in the Federalist Papers, not with what some random lying around
> the house (or Random House) dictionary has in it.
It appears I am not the only person who has spotted this, I read this text
with interest:
=+=
A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second
Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive
purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the
states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility
that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful
standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading
quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep
and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right. The
consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the
power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns,
since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state
militias. This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the
Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state
militia...[T]he individual's right to keep a nd bear arms applies only to
the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except
for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by
individuals is not constitutionally protected."
=+=
FROM:
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/embarassing_2nd.html
Scott A
>
> Left your whole post to demostrate to others that there was absolutely no
> value in doing so, I could have as easily just snipped down to the germane
> part I addressed.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) Your dictionary is wrong, when viewed in the context of the US constitution. Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said it. Intent is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 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
|
|
|
|
