Prev: finder compress
Next: CEO calls iPad "a game changer"
From: SMS on 18 Feb 2010 13:07
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <4b7d70e3$0$1617$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> But I still don't understand what makes you or Ruddell think that
>>>>> I'm a rifle person.
>>>> Well, your sig file has Member National Rifle Association so I just
>>>> figured that was a clue...
>>> Do you believe that all members of the NRA own rifles? Or any other
>>> firearm, for that matter?
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that although I support the second
>>> amendment, along with the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights,
>>> I don't own any firearms.
>> The NRA strongly opposes the 2nd amendment, so it's confusing why you'd
>> be a member.
>
> Huh? The NRA strongly supports the 2nd amendment: "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."

No, they like the part after the second comma, but strongly oppose the
actual meaning of the 2nd amendment.
From: D.F. Manno on 18 Feb 2010 16:53
In article <michelle-0C3670.10385718022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:

> The NRA strongly supports the 2nd amendment: "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."

The NRA strongly supports the _second half_ of the Second Amendment. It
appears to believe that the first half was written in invisible ink.

(And I'm an NRA member, too.)

--
D.F. Manno | dfmanno(a)mail.com
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
intelligent are full of doubt. (Bertrand Russell)
From: Kurt Ullman on 18 Feb 2010 17:00
In article <dfmanno-CEBA62.16530018022010(a)news.albasani.net>,
"D.F. Manno" <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote:

> In article <michelle-0C3670.10385718022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:
>
> > The NRA strongly supports the 2nd amendment: "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."
>
> The NRA strongly supports the _second half_ of the Second Amendment. It
> appears to believe that the first half was written in invisible ink.
>
> (And I'm an NRA member, too.)

I have always found it moderately amusing that a strict
constructionist reading of the constitution would indicate that only the
Yahoo military wannabees in Utah and Idaho would qualify. (g

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton
From: Matthew Russotto on 18 Feb 2010 17:21
In article <YLmdnQo8wODpJeDWnZ2dnUVZ_j6gnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <dfmanno-CEBA62.16530018022010(a)news.albasani.net>,
> "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <michelle-0C3670.10385718022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:
>>
>> > The NRA strongly supports the 2nd amendment: "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."
>>
>> The NRA strongly supports the _second half_ of the Second Amendment. It
>> appears to believe that the first half was written in invisible ink.
>>
>> (And I'm an NRA member, too.)
>
> I have always found it moderately amusing that a strict
>constructionist reading of the constitution would indicate that only the
>Yahoo military wannabees in Utah and Idaho would qualify. (g

Well, a bad (flawed) strict constructionist reading. The same sort of reading
which would tell you the First Amendment only supports the "right of the
people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress
for a redress of grievances" -- that is, freedom of assembly only
applies when petitioning Congress.

(the quote is from SCOTUS in US v. Cruikshank (1876)).

As with the First Amendment, such a reading of the Second Amendment
requires adding conditions which aren't in the text.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Kurt Ullman on 18 Feb 2010 17:38
In article <n-mdnaTf7ovBIODWnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net>,
russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article <YLmdnQo8wODpJeDWnZ2dnUVZ_j6gnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <dfmanno-CEBA62.16530018022010(a)news.albasani.net>,
> > "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno(a)mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <michelle-0C3670.10385718022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The NRA strongly supports the 2nd amendment: "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."
> >>
> >> The NRA strongly supports the _second half_ of the Second Amendment. It
> >> appears to believe that the first half was written in invisible ink.
> >>
> >> (And I'm an NRA member, too.)
> >
> > I have always found it moderately amusing that a strict
> >constructionist reading of the constitution would indicate that only the
> >Yahoo military wannabees in Utah and Idaho would qualify. (g
>
> Well, a bad (flawed) strict constructionist reading. The same sort of
> reading
> which would tell you the First Amendment only supports the "right of the
> people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress
> for a redress of grievances" -- that is, freedom of assembly only
> applies when petitioning Congress.
>
Which of course it never did since all those "or"s included in the
actual text. It specifically listed a whole bunch of things ONE of which
(added with an and, BTW) was redressing grievances. The second,
specifically brings out the militia angle as a requirement. No ors or
ands there.
Now, we can debate the original construction of the term "militia" if
we care to.

> As with the First Amendment, such a reading of the Second Amendment
> requires adding conditions which aren't in the text.
That part about "A well regulated Militia" isn't in the text. Okay,
so maybe the well regulated part doesn't apply to the guys in Idaho and
Utah after all.

--
I get off on '57 Chevys
I get off on screamin' guitars
--Eric Clapton
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: finder compress
Next: CEO calls iPad "a game changer"