Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Torien View Post
    Hey, it was your premise. I just pointed it out. Doesn't make me silly.
    That wasn't my premise.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
      Don't take it so hard. If you had been to London then most likely you would have made a stop at Speakers Corner. That is free speech at it's finest. Skypilot practices there. Seeing that UK/England, free speech is doing just fine, imho
      Does he indeed? I'll make a point of checking him out on my next visit. Does he have a schedule?

      And speakers don't have to have a box to stand on for no reason- the English insist that if you want to talk to them (as a group and if you can find them) you must at least appear to be sober.
      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
        That wasn't my premise.
        Your premise is that militia does not coincide with people in the 2nd Amendment. Thus, you assert that we should substitute 'militia" in lieu of "people" in the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. You could just as easily say that Congress does not coincide with people in the 1st Amend and therefore assert that only Congress has the right to peaceably assemble....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by General Staff View Post
          Does he indeed? I'll make a point of checking him out on my next visit. Does he have a schedule?
          Makes me quite curious as to the nature of the posts by skypilot... being the masochist that I obviously am.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
            Your premise is that militia does not coincide with people in the 2nd Amendment. Thus, you assert that we should substitute 'militia" in lieu of "people" in the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. You could just as easily say that Congress does not coincide with people in the 1st Amend and therefore assert that only Congress has the right to peaceably assemble....
            That's a very good point. People and militia. You're only going to have able-bodied people in any militia. There's no militia on the planet that employs people with missing limbs or faculties if they can avoid it, so it has to be a sub-section of the people.

            Usually 'chosen' men or today women too. Just as Congress is by votes. And those 'chosen' are done so by authorities appointed by Congress. It's a circular process.
            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

            Comment


            • There's no militia on the planet that employs people with missing limbs or faculties if they can avoid it, so it has to be a sub-section of the people
              You might want to retract that statement. We have several amputees serving on active duty. Some have reenlisted. With the Hi tech of today we can still offer useful jobs to our wounded and not just cast them out. USA, USA
              "Ask not what your country can do for you"

              Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

              you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

              Comment


              • Congress does not coincide with people in the 1st Amend
                Huh?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Half Pint View Post
                  You might want to retract that statement. We have several amputees serving on active duty. Some have reenlisted. With the Hi tech of today we can still offer useful jobs to our wounded and not just cast them out. USA, USA
                  I know that. I took it into consideration before posting what I did. Maybe reread. But blind marines will pretty soon be dead marines, and seeing eye dogs won't save them either.

                  I'm not advocating any casting out. In fact just the opposite. Include them in some capacity, just not the front line. It's just common sense.
                  Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                  (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                    Huh?
                    My point exactly. It is you who insists that the predicate foundation involving the means provided and the ends desired has no relevance. It is your position that wherever the two words themselves are at variance, you must abandon one in preference of the other, for some reason unbenownst to everyone else in the entire free world. It is merely the strict application of your distorted reasoning process with the 2nd Amendment which leads to the result in the 1st Amendment which you (quite properly) respond with "Huh?"

                    Of course, your disbelief of this process with respect to the 1st, totally discredits the adoption of your identical approach with respect to the 2nd, placing your unique and quite novel interpretation of the 2nd in the same disbelief category charecterized by the response, "Huh?"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                      Huh?
                      I always loved that word.

                      I'm not sure whose side I'm on here yet, but it's interesting to hear an argument about the Second Amendment.

                      I just wish you boys could keep the letter count down on words since my comprehension tends to stray. It might even help you too.
                      Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                      (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                        My point exactly. It is you who insists that the predicate foundation involving the means provided and the ends desired has no relevance. It is your position that wherever the two words themselves are at variance, you must abandon one in preference of the other, for some reason unbenownst to everyone else in the entire free world. It is merely the strict application of your distorted reasoning process with the 2nd Amendment which leads to the result in the 1st Amendment which you (quite properly) respond with "Huh?"

                        Of course, your disbelief of this process with respect to the 1st, totally discredits the adoption of your identical approach with respect to the 2nd, placing your unique and quite novel interpretation of the 2nd in the same disbelief category charecterized by the response, "Huh?"
                        Huh?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                          Huh?
                          Predicate foundation = the fulfillment of a condition prior to the rule being applied. Thus, the predicate foundation for kicking an extra point in football is the scoring of a touchdown. You can not kick the extra point without first scoring the touchdown.... it is verbotten.

                          In order to apply the rule where the means provided is ignored in favor of acheiving the desired result, you must first establish that it is impossible to achieve the desired result given only the limited method provided to achieve that result. Thus, if the desired result is securing two peices of wood together by using a nail and a feather, the rule states you can ignore the directive to use a feather and can use a hammer instead. You can not use glue however, because you must give all of the words meaning to the greatest extent possible.

                          You desire to kick the extra point without scoring the touchdown and substitute the word militia for the word people without first showing that the desired result can not otherwise be achieved. This is no different than substituting the word Congress for the word people in the 1st Amend. In each instance the rule can not be applied because you have failed to establish that the desired result can not be achieved by following the instructions provided for accomplishing that task....

                          Comment


                          • Well that's some dance with words. Well done is all I can say.
                            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                              Predicate foundation = the fulfillment of a condition prior to the rule being applied. Thus, the predicate foundation for kicking an extra point in football is the scoring of a touchdown. You can not kick the extra point without first scoring the touchdown.... it is verbotten.

                              In order to apply the rule where the means provided is ignored in favor of acheiving the desired result, you must first establish that it is impossible to achieve the desired result given only the limited method provided to achieve that result. Thus, if the desired result is securing two peices of wood together by using a nail and a feather, the rule states you can ignore the directive to use a feather and can use a hammer instead. You can not use glue however, because you must give all of the words meaning to the greatest extent possible.

                              You desire to kick the extra point without scoring the touchdown and substitute the word militia for the word people without first showing that the desired result can not otherwise be achieved. This is no different than substituting the word Congress for the word people in the 1st Amend. In each instance the rule can not be applied because you have failed to establish that the desired result can not be achieved by following the instructions provided for accomplishing that task....
                              I choose not to read your post, because you're obnoxious. Maybe later.
                              Last edited by Miss You; 18 Nov 08, 17:45.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Miss You View Post
                                I choose not to read your post, because you're obnoxious. Maybe later.
                                That means I win, and you lose, neener, neener, neener.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X