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

Diogenes wrote:
> 
> Steve Krulick wrote:
> > Two Bears wrote:
> >
> >>"Roger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>
> >>>"Buckaroo Banzai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>>Steve, you can try and warp the meaning of those twenty-seven words in any
> >>>>manner you like, but their meaning is quite clear to any clear-thinking
> >>>>person.  The Goverment *cannot* infringe on the individual's right to keep
> >>>>and bear arms.
> >>>
> >>>As long as they are part of a well regulated militia, you are right.
> >>>Otherwise, it can, has, and continues to "infringe" on individuals right to
> >>>keep and bear arms.
> >>>
> >>>Look at the court cases. You're wrong.
> >>
> >>Fuck the puppet filled courts.
> >
> >
> > Well, so much for YOUR accepting the US Const, and the role it
> > gives to the Judiciary!
> >
> > So, if the courts disagree with YOUR fantasy beliefs, THEY must
> > be wrong, and acting on political agendas?
> >
> > Or we can just ignore the courts and let YOU make all the
> > decisions!
> >
> > Nah!
> >
> >
> >>This should be easy for you to answer:
> >
> >
> > I smell a strawman coming.
> >
> >
> >>Forget that the 2ndA even exists,
> >>
> >>*A well read electorate being necessary to secure proper public
> >>servants, the right of hte people to keep and read books, shall not be
> >>infringed*
> >
> >
> > Ah this hoary old bogus wheeze! Already dispatched, plagiarizer!
> >
> > Ah, I see you've stolen that silly analogy again, still without
> > crediting it! No matter, it's not worth taking credit for!
> > Except you've added some stupid straw, beyond the original!
> >
> > YOU tried to use this nonsense on July 10, and I replied thusly;
> > I don't recall you refuting my response:
> >
> >
> >>How about this: *A well read electorate being necessary to secure
> >>proper public sevants, the right of the people to keep and read books
> >>shall not be infringed*
> >
> >
> >>I'll take this slow for you...
> >
> >
> > That's clearly the only speed YOU operate at!
> >
> >
> >>According to whoever said that, the total of electorate (elgible
> >>voters) in all those states in in 1788 was around 300,000? or around
> >>13%? of the population. That's alot of persons (many people)
> >
> >
> > Wrong. THE PEOPLE is a singular entity! THE PEOPLE is NOT plural
> > for PERSON! THAT's your first error of usage.
> >
> > IN all legal and constitutional usage THE PEOPLE (note, not just
> > "people" but THE PEOPLE) simply means the singular, collective
> > enfranchised body politic in its political capacity.
> 
> Poppycock

Balderdash!
 
> Webster's 1828
> 
> PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.]
> 
> 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We
> say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English
> people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it
> comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or
> any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country.
> 
> "Any portion" includes that portion known as 1.

More bogus selective citing!

The logical fallacy you are NOW employing (assuming you are
clever enough to do this disingenuously; I'll wager you are just
ignorant and grasping at straws!) is one of ambiguity,
specifically the Fallacy of Equivocation, where one word has
multiple uses, and YOU have picked the irrelevant one to this
usage as if it WERE the correct one.

This is NOT the legal dictionary definition that applies to how
the term of art THE PEOPLE is used in the Const!

See, if we take ALL the definitions of PEOPLE in a current
dictionary, we get:

> 1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
> common interest
> 2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of
> persons
> 3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
> 4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special
> class -- often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other
> people
> 5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common
> culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common
> language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a
> politically organized group
> 6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
> 7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

For legal/political/constitutional purposes, #7 is the SINGULAR
and relevant term; the others can go take a hike!

The LEGAL concept of THE PEOPLE is not numerical or even
geographical, but conceptual and political, and THAT definition
is: "the body of enfranchised citizens of the state." IT is a
SINGULAR, collective entity.

YOU want to take what is clearly a definition identical to #5,
where the Const is only using the #7 meaning!

The 2nd Amen doesn't say "the right of the AMERICAN people"!
THEN, by so qualifying "people," it changes it so that it would
mean everyone! THE People is NOT the same as "American people"!

The phrase "the British people" means ALL Brits, even those no
longer IN Britain, and covers ALL individuals, as per Webster's
use, and #5 above.

When a rock band says to a crowd of thousands in Madison Square
Garden, "People of New York, we love you!" one isn't addressing
ALL the persons of New York, but only a PARTIAL segment, as
Webster's mentions, nor the enfranchised body politic that would
be "The People of the City of New York vs. John Doe"! 

But THE PEOPLE, when used constitutionally, is NOT numerical,
and not capable of being made partial.
 
> The right of the people, collectively, or in any portion, to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed.

Bogus straw, based on your logical fallacy of equivocation. It's
not "people" but "THE PEOPLE"! Go back to Bouvier to see how it
IS used, not how you can twist it.


So is this Webster mis-cite going to be your new mantra?
 
>   <snip of redundantly redundant sophistry>

Snipping doesn't refute!

Calling it sophistry doesn't make it so! What happened to
"demagogic"? Couldn't find a relevant definition that matched
your illiterate usage?

YOUR above misuse of the dictionary, applying the fallacy of
equivocation, is as good an example of sophistry as it gets,
unless you are just dumb and didn't know any better.

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727