Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,020
Default A call for tourists to avoid Florida...

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.
  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,868
Default 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   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,020
Default 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   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Mar 2011
Posts: 541
Default 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   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,868
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2012
Posts: 880
Default 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
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
crazy tourists Don White General 0 September 29th 08 02:09 PM
Avoid these compasses Wilbur Hubbard ASA 1 April 18th 07 01:34 AM
Tourists LLoyd Bonafide ASA 0 March 23rd 07 01:19 PM
Marketing phrases to avoid.... Tim General 5 November 25th 06 06:36 PM
Another example to avoid following: [email protected] General 3 September 28th 05 04:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017