Subject:
|
Re: Description vs. argument
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:20:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1258 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 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?
No.
> > 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."
> =+=
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 just a snipe with no more
substance behind it than usual, or don't. Whichever.
++Lar
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
| (...) 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? (...) (...) (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
|
|
|
|
