Prev: finder compress
Next: CEO calls iPad "a game changer"
From: Steve Hix on 18 Feb 2010 18:17
In article <0001HW.C7A2DA6400237523B02919BF(a)news.sasktel.net>,
Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:56:14 -0600, Michelle Steiner wrote
> (in article <michelle-BD6925.08561418022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.C7A2AEE6001BA672B02919BF(a)news.sasktel.net>,
> > Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.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?
>
> I guess I just figured it went hand in hand.
>
> > 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.

I know several people who are members of ACLU/NRA/etc simultaneously.

Some own firearms, some don't. Completely weirds out some people on all
sides of the issues involved.

> OK, my mistake and sorry about that...

No need to apologize, it was a good opportunity to clear the fog a bit.

:}
From: Steve Hix on 18 Feb 2010 18:19
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.

Not at all; it's quite clear that the first phrase is explanatory, not
exclusionary.

No confusion at all.

> (And I'm an NRA member, too.)
From: Steve Hix on 18 Feb 2010 18:22
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

Why? If you're a male citizen between 17 and 45 (or female member of the
National Guard), you're part of the unorganized militia. See 10 USC 311,
312.
From: Steve Hix on 18 Feb 2010 18:32
In article <mM-dnVzAZYvvXODWnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

"Well-regulated" as understood by the Framers, is very much *not* what's
generally assumed today, as a state of being under the direct control of
the government.

The term was commonly in use to describe any entity that functioned
according to some minimum standard, specifically as in cases like:

- A "regulated" timepiece, meeting requirements for uses such as
navigation. Adjusting the speed of the movement is called regulating it.

- Adjusting a shotgun to shoot to point of aim is called regulating it.

- A person showing self control in their behavior could be described as
exhibiting well-regulated appetites.

Contemporary uses in that vein abound, literally. But you'd have to read
Federal period and earlier sources to find them.

I used to fall on the other side of the issue, the one you seem to be
taking, but after a couple decades poking around and studying it, don't
any more. It's not supportable on the historical evidence.

No matter how much Dr. Belleisle so devoutly wished otherwise.
From: Matthew Russotto on 19 Feb 2010 00:04
In article <mM-dnVzAZYvvXODWnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.

Which didn't stop the Cruikshank court from badly misinterpreting it.

>The second, specifically brings out the militia angle as a
>requirement. No ors or ands there.

There is no wording indicating that the "militia angle" is a requirement
for the right to keep and bear arms. It's a requirement for the
"security of a free state".
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: finder compress
Next: CEO calls iPad "a game changer"