Re: JOIN THE NRA !!

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:52:24 -0800, Danct wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:33 am, Bama Brian <bamaNOTbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:16:55 -0800, Danct wrote:
On Dec 21, 10:38 am, Bama Brian <bamaNOTbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:17:30 -0800, Danct wrote:
That's always the way it is with you, isn't it? If someone has a
different view than you, well then they are "liberals" or
"twisting" something. Evil-doers, huh?

Is it one law for all - or no law at all, Danct?

Are you saying that the Constitution essentially has only the
meaning that each man perceives in it?

As I have often said here, I believe this is what we have our courts
for; to judge such matters. You will recall I was questioning
someones assertion that their asserted meaning behind the Second
Amendment was the only valid one. My response was that there are
other interpretations of this out there no less valid.

I'm only saying that we are all free to interpret the framers
intentions as we wish, however the interpretations that really matter
are the court's. Your correct in assuming "anarchy" would result any
other way, and by the way shows the true genius of the constitution
itself, no?

If you believe that the courts must "interpret" the Constitution, then
your prior statement of "we are all free to interpret" means that you
believe in either anarchy or a Constitutional Menu, wherein you get to
pick and choose those points you like.

Sorry, Danct, your feelings have no place in a constitutional republic
or a nation of laws.  However, if you'd like to go to the Emperor and
plead your case...



That way lies anarchy.  Or does the
Constitution have the meaning that we can all read, without
"interpreting" it?

Is there a right to free speech?  Or must we be muzzled when we
speak of our political leaders?  Or are there some things which we
must not say because we might offend someone?

Refer above.
"I disagree with what you say.  But I will defend to the death your
right to say it."  Ever hear that one, Danct?  Or has your entire
life been so politically correct that you only follow what is
currently fashionable?

You don't appear to know me very well, Brian because, no....... your
assumption is incorrect.

Here's what I know about you, Danct. You claim to be both male and
married. You claim to know much, yet you cite very little indeed.
Instead, almost all of your points are nothing but raw assertions, with a
large sprinkling of feelings mixed in. But from what little fact you've
written I gather you are anti-gun.

You are certainly anti-RKBA, Danct, which happens to be one of the
currently fashionable liberal ideals.

When I saw that you had posted, Brian I was looking forward to looking
at it..........Sadly I was disappointed.

I'm so sorry about your "feelings". Don't expect sympathy from me. BTW,
such an appeal is just another argumentative fallacy.


My comment above:
" I'm only saying that we are all free to interpret the framers
intentions as we wish, however the interpretations that really matter
are the court's. You're correct in assuming "anarchy" would result any
other way, and by the way shows the true genius of the constitution
itself, no?"
How you can take umbrage to this is beyond me when I was agreeing with
you, unless you are simply trying to twist it completely out of
proportion.

Not even an avowed liberal who wants more and larger fedgov, would
pretend to want an outright anarchy. Try agreeing with something more
substantive if you want my cooperation in a debate.


I could easily charge you with being "un-American", but it might not be
any more correct than your charge of my feelings about our
constitutional rights, and only serves to inflame the argument unless
that was your purpose.

Since there's never been a proper debate from you with citations, clear
examples, and decent statistics, I suppose you can argue all you want.

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... Are you saying that the Constitution essentially has only the meaning ... interpretations of this out there no less valid. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: JOIN THE NRA !!
    ... questioning someones assertion that their asserted meaning behind ... there are other interpretations of this out there no less valid. ... Constitution without some slicky lawyer explaing it to you, ...  Ever hear that one, Danct? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: 100 Things to Have
    ... coin to contain a precise amount of gold. ... James Madison, author of the Constitution, disagrees. ... He might make any claim he likes about the supposed meaning, true or not, but what matters is what the signatories signed - the actual words used. ... If you have a reasonable interpretation of my words that leads you to the conclusion you made up, ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: {BS} ODonnell jeered by law students
    ... government intertwined with religion. ... be liberals in the Republican party. ... You obviously don't understand the intent of the Constitution. ... God, these people are idiots. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: Spell Catcher [was spelling checker]
    ... behind those statements based on common interpretations of them. ... The responsibility of ensuring clear communication does not rest ... implications that people might take away from what I say. ... one without an ulterior motive or meaning. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)