| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
|
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
In article , dump-on-
says... On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote: On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote: The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd amendment? It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense. "It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along. It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not making that up. "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people" explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has a specific and direct meaning. If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people. Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not without consequences, except maybe in Florida. Take your political agenda somewhere else asshole. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
On 4/2/12 7:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article4qWdnVzZaqnuEuTSnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 4/2/12 7:26 AM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote: On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote: The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd amendment? It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense. "It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along. It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not making that up. "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people" explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has a specific and direct meaning. If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people. Whatever it means, it surely doesn't mean you can chase down a kid who is carrying an iced tea and a bag of candy and shoot him to death, not without consequences, except maybe in Florida. Take your political agenda somewhere else asshole. Just count me among the group of everyone who doesn't take you or your demands seriously, moron. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
On 4/2/2012 4:26 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says... On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote: On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote: The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd amendment? It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense. "It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along. It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not making that up. "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people" explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has a specific and direct meaning. If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people. I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
In article , lid says...
On 4/2/2012 4:26 AM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... On 4/1/2012 5:50 PM, JustWait wrote: On 4/1/2012 4:45 PM, thumper wrote: On 3/31/2012 8:28 AM, BAR wrote: The right to keep and bear arms has implicit within it the abiltiy to defend ones self from aggressors. Otherwise, why would there be a 2nd amendment? It apparently had more to do with "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" than individual self defense. "It apparently"? LOL, another one who makes it up as he goes along. It is apparent. You have a problem with a literal interpretation of the second amendment? It doesn't mention individual self defense, I'm not making that up. "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Do you understand the meaning of "shall" and the meaning of "not". Do you understand that the amendment mentions "State" and "people" explicitly. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has a specific and direct meaning. If it had been a right granted only to the States then they would not have added the second clause, explicitly identifying the people. I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and individuals can defend themselves. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
On 4/2/2012 2:39 PM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says... I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and individuals can defend themselves. "*a* free state", clearly meaning the nation, and nothing whatsoever about self defense... I think we've exhausted the discussion. If you don't want to admit the obvious that's cool.  By the way, I respect you for your stated opinion on Zimmerman's responsibilities. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
In article , lid says...
On 4/2/2012 2:39 PM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and individuals can defend themselves. "*a* free state", clearly meaning the nation, and nothing whatsoever about self defense... I think we've exhausted the discussion. If you don't want to admit the obvious that's cool. "a free state" clearly means one of the several states that are so often referred to in the US Constitution. By the way, I respect you for your stated opinion on Zimmerman's responsibilities. What are you talking about? All I have ever said is that Zimmerman instigated the entire episode by getting out of his car. I never said Zimmerman was responsible for anything nor have I said that Martin is responsible for anything. What I will say is you have a wannabe cop in Zimmereman encountering a wannabe criminal and thug in Martin and the result is that Martin is dead. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
On 4/3/2012 7:28 AM, BAR wrote:
In , lid says... On 4/2/2012 2:39 PM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and individuals can defend themselves. "*a* free state", clearly meaning the nation, and nothing whatsoever about self defense... I think we've exhausted the discussion. If you don't want to admit the obvious that's cool. "a free state" clearly means one of the several states that are so often referred to in the US Constitution. By the way, I respect you for your stated opinion on Zimmerman's responsibilities. What are you talking about? All I have ever said is that Zimmerman instigated the entire episode by getting out of his car. I never said Zimmerman was responsible for anything nor have I said that Martin is responsible for anything. What I will say is you have a wannabe cop in Zimmereman encountering a wannabe criminal and thug in Martin and the result is that Martin is dead. Getting out of the car led to a chain of events that neither the vic. or accused would have anticipated or desired. Everyone except the media, the Brady bunch, and those who make their living on racial disorder is saddened by the incident and what followed. You can argue what the 2nd implies till the cows come home and won't reach a consensus, so why bother. It's like arguing with Harry, who seems to be reading from a script. *You can't get through to him* -- http://tinyurl.com/75bq9db |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
A call for tourists to avoid Florida...
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:49:44 -0700, thumper wrote:
On 4/2/2012 2:39 PM, BAR wrote: In , lid says... I didn't question that. Your original statement questioned why there would be a 2nd amendment at all if not for *self* defense. Explicit in the amendment itself is the answer... "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". It is there to ensure that the states can defend themselves and individuals can defend themselves. "*a* free state", clearly meaning the nation, and nothing whatsoever about self defense... I think we've exhausted the discussion. If you don't want to admit the obvious that's cool. By the way, I respect you for your stated opinion on Zimmerman's responsibilities. Why would a 'free state' mean the 'nation'? Surely the authors would have used the word 'nation' if that was there intent. States were in existence at the time. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| crazy tourists | General | |||
| Avoid these compasses | ASA | |||
| Tourists | ASA | |||
| Marketing phrases to avoid.... | General | |||
| Another example to avoid following: | General | |||
![BAR[_2_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Hybrid Mode
