Main > Everything Else
Flying to Nevada from Illinois with a gun
Sasquatch!:
Yeah, so that Act-Labs lightgun, that thing's kind of weird-looking, huh? What's up with that whole "sci-fi ray gun" thing they're going for?
shmokes:
--- Quote from: fredster on February 24, 2005, 11:21:24 pm ---When I was a soldier in the Army, I was a gunner in a towed Artillery unit (REDLEGS).
--- End quote ---
Just clearing things up, Fred. It sounded as though you were actually being towed...you know....gunning. Seeing as you've never in your life been off American soil, and it's been quite some time since hostile foreign troops have been inside our borders I wondered what/who exactly you were shooting at and where your unit was being towed (forgive me if towed means something other than what I am suggesting. I've never heard of a towed artillery unit and just assume it means towed in the same sense that you would tow a trailer or boat).
I make no bones about my age. I'm 26. I don't try to, nor feel the need to hide that or feel embarrassed about it. In fact, as you know, I'm the one who told you within the last couple of weeks or so that I started Kindergarten around 1983. Incessantly referring to my age, or my being a student, or my mom must be proud, etc. shows nothing more than that you either are unable to or choose not to go toe to toe with me intellectually so instead resort to circumstantial ad hominem attacks.
Age an't all it's cracked up to be Fredster. When you're in diapers and wheeling around an oxygen tank, I'll still be playing golf and building arcade controls. And I'll still be able to run circles around you when it comes to logical reasoning.
Whatever.
mnm1200:
--- Quote from: xar256 on February 24, 2005, 04:38:01 pm ---Kinda interesting that when someone feels compelled enough that something is just <like slavery> they can quote rulebooks at you...But when they feel stongly enough that they are right, they can just ignore the other parts of the same rulebook. <Sorry Seamonkey, you took my bait on that one>
"The right to bear arms openly"
vs.
"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"
There must be an awful lot of 1 person militias out there protecting the State. <Considering the actual definition of a militia, I don't see a arguement here - I know some will try>.
But I do feel that that amendment could and should have been worded much better to prevent people twisting it around like what has happened over the years. But that's just me...
Xar256 ;D
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
-The first draft of the 2nd Amendment, submitted by Virginia
Obviously the standing army part was a sore point between the Colonies, so it was stricken. However we are left with very important verbage that explains EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment means.
--- End quote ---
There would be no controversy with this at all if they left it the original way (maybe w/o the standing armies part). As is, it's improper English. If there were a semicolon as there was originally, there would be no confusion as to the meaning of this! =/
shmokes:
I suspect that the vagueness was sometimes intentional, as a compromise. There was a lot of contention over the wording of these amendments. I think some of them could not get enough votes to pass until it was made vague enough that people of various positions could read it in a way that they felt could reasonably be interpreted as they liked. Damned democracy always compllicating things!
mnm1200:
I don't see why it should have to be vague, let alone grammatically incorrect.
Granted, I don't remember much of the history of the time, but I believe it should have been clearly specified. Much of early American law arose out of how the British has been treating them. The amendment regarding quartering of troops was one of them, which was clear and to the point.
With the second amendment, you don't have that liberty. Yes as it's written, it is vague, which means you have to go to the original intent. Of course, there were more than one side back then too. I believe that people can argue all they want about it, but it will take a Supreme Court decision to decide what it really means, and we all know that the Supreme Court in any form is not an unbiased mediator...
:depressed:
:police: