Re: The Second Amendment VERY Clear....

ulTRAX wrote:
> John Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> > ulTRAX wrote:
> >
> > > Play Jurist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopelprint051601.html
> > >
> > > I've read this before. This is the gun nut's version of "how many
> > > angels can dance on the head of a pin". It pretends some logical
> > > deconstruction of the 2ed will yield more insight than actual laws
> > > such as the Militia Act of 1792 written at the time by the same people
> > > who drafted and wrote the 2ed. It's just another attempt on the part
> > > of the gun nuts to force a round hole in a square hole. Thanks for the
> > > laughs.
> >
> > Nice of you to finally show that you clearly advocate the government 
> > ignoring the Constitution whenever it finds it convenient to do so.
>
> Duh Einstein... thanks for proving my point. I'm trying to show that
> there IS consistency between the Constitution, the 2ed and the Militia
> Act which should be expected because they were all written by the same
> crowd within 5 years of each other. You might want to give the Framers
> and the First Congress SOME credit that the intent of these laws was
> fresh in their minds.
>
> Instead you gun nuts ignore LAW and anything else that's inconvenient,

No one is 'ignoring the law'. It's your cock-eyed, upside down, non 
sequitur, miss application of it that's being ignored.

> preferring to rewrite history and play word games as "proof" of your
> views.

Analyzing sentence structure, the means by which people communicate ideas, 
isn't 'playing word games'. It's a rational notion when trying to figure 
out what idea someone meant to convey.

> Since when is intellectual bankruptcy to be seen as noble?

I wouldn't know. When was it that you started?