Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:01:41 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Leif Rakur wrote:
>> 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > On 30 Nov 2003 13:24:20 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > >> On 29 Nov 2003 22:52:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Mayer) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > >> >> On 28 Nov 2003 21:37:58 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur)
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >Leif continuing:  If the Pennsylvania Minority had truncated its
>> > >> >> >statement, removing the supplementary words that make "bear arms"
>> > >> >> >literal in meaning, so that it said only "7. That the people have a
>> > >> >> >right to bear arms," it would have been understood in its military
>> > >> >> >meaning: "That the people have a right to render armed military
>> > >> >> >service." Then "bear arms" would have been used as it is in the Second
>> > >> >> >Amendment.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>     So, your saying that the people of this country have the right to
>> > >> >> join their own military organizations?  Albert Isham and GEE tried to
>> > >> >> pull this same stuff and it makes as much sense now as it did then.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Leif speaking:  No, I don't say that.  The people, under the Second
>> > >> >Amendment, have the right, acting as a well regulated state militia,
>> > >> >to provide their own armed military service.
>> > >>
>> > >>      Quit lying.  You basically said just what I interpreted above.
>> > >> Now you are attempting to say that the people have the right to form a
>> > >> federal or state military.  Will you make up your mind or are you
>> > >> going to continue to dance around the fact that you think that only
>> > >> the military has the right to keep and bear arms and that civilians
>> > >> should be keeping them in some sort of government lock up?
>> > >
>> > >Leif speaking:  What's your hubbub all about, anyway? I don't believe
>> > >I've said anything here about the federal military.  But since you
>> > >brought it up... Yes, the people of the United States, acting through
>> > >their federal government, have a right to form a federal military.  Is
>> > >that controversial or something?  The people of the states, acting
>> > >through their state government, have a right to maintain their own
>> > >state militia.  That's secured to them by the Second Amendment.  To
>> > >me, there's no reason for that to be controversial either.
>> >
>> >      Then why didn't the founders say that in plainiEnglish?  Your
>> > contortions seem to indicate that yoiu believe that the founders were
>> > a bunch of illeterate idipots whan the wrote the Second Amendment.
>> > Why do you have to go to such contortions to make it say something
>> > that it obviously doesn't?
>> 
>> Leif Rakur speaking:  The founders wrote in the English language of
>> their day, 215 years ago or so.
>
>Mayeloon, who has trouble making sense of the language of TODAY,
>and who manages to misinterpret or misrepresent THAT, even after
>those he misconstrues explain it again to him, would have us
>believe that HE understands the legal terms of art and usage of
>educated elite lawyers of 1789, his "illeterate idipots" [sic,
>guffaw]! He can't accept that THEY were educated and precise
>literates and HE is the "illeterate idipot"!
>
>What is "obvious" to him is simply his ignorant take on what he
>can't understand; what are contortions to him is simple going
>back and finding just HOW they used the words consistently in
>legal documents, that when the phrase "bear arms" was used,
>unadorned and unqualified by specifics that made the term
>literal, it ALWAYS referred exclusively to militia service or
>military action.
>
     The why didn't they say exactly what you think they said rather
than what they wrote?