Guns, Guns Guns

gcomeau wrote:
The comedy value of not bothering to read someone's entire reply to you and then complaining they are not interested in understanding your position is priceless.

Probably going to be my last post to you. You are now on my ignore list.

But in the interest of trying to explain the basics to you.

What I find tragic is that you see nothing wrong with first telling me my opinion on proper basic posting etticate is bullshit.

If my opinion is bullshit ..

You then expect me to discuss anything with you. We are not even speaking the same language.

After that nothing matters or before for that matter.

T2M

PS that part about reading above Ten. couldn't even figure out how to do it when I included the quoted mayerial in my post. That was this morning. So your fanatasism seems a little misplaced.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The comedy value of not bothering to read someone's entire reply to you and then complaining they are not interested in understanding your position is priceless.

Probably going to be my last post to you. You are now on my ignore list.

But in the interest of trying to explain the basics to you.

What I find tragic is that you see nothing wrong with first telling me my opinion on proper basic posting etticate is bullshit.

If my opinion is bullshit ..

You then expect me to discuss anything with you. We are not even speaking the same language.

After that nothing matters or before for that matter.

Actually, I presented an argument why your opinion on posting etiquette was bullshit. If you had a counter-argument you could have rebutted. But... you didn't.

PS that part about reading above Ten. couldn't even figure out how to do it when I included the quoted mayerial in my post. That was this morning. So your fanatasism seems a little misplaced.

I have no idea what this is even talking about.

Given that the meaning of Latin doesn't change over the years (unlike English and most of the other languages), wouldn't it have saved everyone a lot of grief had the Constitution and all the amendments been written in Latin?

{Ad tertium dicendum quod sensus non mutatur elitr Latinae (et plures dissimilibus linguis Latina), noluit eam Constitutionem Salus dolor sit amet omnibus emendationibus et Latine scripta?}

And no, I don't speak/read Latin myself (aside from a few words).

{Et non loquentur / Latinam legere me (paucis recessit a).}

That wouldn't change anything, since in order to be useful, the Constitution has to be translated into english at some point, at which point the fuzziness inherent in living languages kicks in and opens up room for interpretation again.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Perhaps someday you will read in context. You work for a news media company? Seems that way.

No, i´m 3/4 retired due to a chronic health issue.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Shall we all quote out of context. That quote came when The E said I wanted to overthrow the government (edit) that I hated. Volunteering at to spend 20 years with my life on the line to support my government and its constitution (including the right to bear arms) isn't relevent. Now that's a novel concept.

And his reply was based on your statements strongly suggesting that you already "should have" done so.

Your statements about overthrowing governments and how you indirectly(and incorrectly) claimed/inferred that that was achieved by personal gun ownership, and you connecting this with the statement regarding law vs right and militias...

And then The E connecting it back to you.

So no it was not out of context as such, but i guess i can see how you could think that. Since you think too much i mean...

That is what happens when a subject isn´t clearcut in where it begins and ends, you get topic drift. You simply MEANT your statement more separately away from one part of the topic, than i read it as.

thinkstoomuch wrote:By the way notice you ignore Vietnam. If the evidence don't fit ignore it.

Uh, seriously, go back and read my post again. Simple pointer, search the page for the word "Vietnam" and look for the word in my post which you apparently missed. Somehow.

My reply on Vietnam is the middle block of text after the second quote from you in that post.
Shall i quote myself as well?
"Vietnam is neither a French nor USA proxy anymore,..."

thinkstoomuch wrote:So the militia still exists last amended in 1994. To this INAL anyway.

Yes, that is a funny little way for some people trying to make the 2nd amendment equate to everyone(or atleast everyone male and not over 45 years old or less than 18).

Problem with that is multifold, first of all it is not de facto true(try to enforce it and you will find that noone actually has the de facto authority to do so, effectively making it irrelevant, which seriously makes me wonder why it´s still around ).
Secondly, it is questionable whether it is legal to force "everyone" to be militia(and whether you WANT it that way, because this effectively means that USA can never complain about others attacking civillians, because by default anyone from USA is militia).
Third, it doesn´t actually apply to 2nd amendment at all, as "unorganized militia" does not, cannot be said to equate to "well regulated militia" except in a very weird dreamworld.
And more...

thinkstoomuch wrote:So what does "well regulated" mean in 18th century English?

Something like the national guard "lite". Essentially, since the national guard has been deployed outside of USA for extended time and for offensive purposes, that pretty much proves its no longer a militia.

Original minutemen can probably be described as well regulated militia, at the time and today as well.
Defensive, local, with limited ability to act regionally, not fulltime soldiers.

thinkstoomuch wrote:We are just going to have to disagree. I don't agree with your reading of the 2nd.

Tough luck. As i´ve noted before, you cannot pick and choose what parts of the constitution you accept as existing.

And if you read 2nd, if you try to only read the latter part, then the first part becomes incomplete. Because it´s written to be ONE sentence, not two.



##########

gcomeau wrote:The comedy value of not bothering to read someone's entire reply to you and then complaining they are not interested in understanding your position is priceless.

Even more so when he tries to mock me for not replying to something which i DID reply to.

The E wrote:That wouldn't change anything, since in order to be useful, the Constitution has to be translated into english at some point, at which point the fuzziness inherent in living languages kicks in and opens up room for interpretation again.

And since translation standards actually change MORE than the languages do, it would actually make things WORSE!!!

Tenshinai » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:50 pm wrote:...snip too damn difficult to sort deleted sections on this phone...

So I clearly denote what I am replying (using the reply with quote button) to and you take it out of that post I made. Applying it to the entire recent topic and I am the one who is thinking too much. Granted I may be thinking to narrow. But isn't that the whole point to reply with quote. Showing your response with the question. Ialwayz thought so.

I apologise about the Vietnam comment apparently RIF applies to me as well. In my defense I have often said that I have difficulties with nested comments. Not an excuse. It is the forum standard now much over my objections.

I still really don't understand why I have to hate my country to worry about what a future tyrant might do with the stewardship, we the people grant them. I wish citizens of other coutries would/could have done so in the past then maybe the US would still be a nice parchial place believing in isolationism. But they didn't and we aren't.

(Edit)One reason that the 2nd amendment is still there is called the constitutional process. Only way it gets removed is a another amendment. For example prohibition.

But that would require actually getting the majority of people to go along. After the ERA amendment seems much easier despite SCOTUS rulings to the contrary to say it means nothing.

If a well regulated didn't mean anything when it was written, then who is to say some other future Congress won't write a law recreating a militia. Be pretty hard to do without it. Or the people capable of forming a militia. As a fairly simple example.

If it means nothing to anyone then getting the votes and Congress to repeal it should be a snap.

Whatever,
T2M

Edit was only meant to clean up spelling, snide comment and such. Then I got carried away.

thinkstoomuch wrote:By the way notice you ignore Vietnam. If the evidence don't fit ignore it. Or that it is an all or nothing proposition. There is no deterrence value because you say so. "It's good to be sure." Wish I was a lot more sure myself. No I don't as that normally means I am in for a world of hurt.

Vietnam isn't really a good analogue anyway. First of all, a foreign war is different than a war in your own country, given that generally in the latter case you can just pick up and leave if you don't want to extend it any more for whatever reason (among other things). Secondly, Vietnam was hardly a pure popular resistance scenario, given the involvement of the NVA.

Eyal wrote:Vietnam isn't really a good analogue anyway. First of all, a foreign war is different than a war in your own country, given that generally in the latter case you can just pick up and leave if you don't want to extend it any more for whatever reason (among other things). Secondly, Vietnam was hardly a pure popular resistance scenario, given the involvement of the NVA.

To my mind iy is a better example than most. At least of the limits of technology. From the Vietnamese perspective. Popular removal of a corrupt puppet French government. That after Frances failure President Kennedy thought (with his whiz hids) that America could make right using the latest whiz bangs, to maintain said corrupt government.

Like the American fracas was a pure popular movement in any way, shape or form.

Where did John Paul Jones get his ship from? Yep the French. Is one glaring example in keeping with our esteemed author's bent.

War is never a good choice. Unfortunately it ends up being the best choice at times.

Enjoy,
T2M

Sadly, sometimes War Is The Only Choice. For a homework assignment, please re read the Bill Of Rights. Compare that with today. Some scary parallels. Just sayin" Just me.

Just me also here and I think that every Amendment since the 10th, if such new Amendments did not dovetail with the 10th, are also null and void. We have a lot of work to do. HB

As you can probably tell by now I am a very conservative person. Trying to keep or maintain. And yes ... many examples of armed individuals toppling governments. Us in 1775-83