VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 Question, where do you see that the gentlemen in question were "arrested" or "incarcerated"? They were questioned and released, and asked to leave the speech. I guess your standards of free speech and what qualifies as an arrest are different for "Code Pinkos." 621213[/snapback] Why did they need to be released if they were not being held. Just because you don't go into a cell doesn't mean your not "arrested".
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Same way they justify everything: "it's in the public interest". Like their raises a few years back. 621220[/snapback] Oh yeh, forgot about that clause, hmm.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 The British Army was not a militia in the Revolutionary War. Plus, by your argument, if the 2nd refers specifically to the military, it therefore is against private gun ownership. When you start arguing over the proper interpretation of commas, you're probably at the point where it's time to step back and reconsider the direction your argument is going in. 621211[/snapback] I'll dumb this down a little more for you. Because our country needs an army, the people need to be able to protect themselves from the improper use of the army. An example of this would be a government that grew too oppressive. The 2nd amendment speaks about the "Militia" and the "People" as two seperate groups. The proper use of commas or any punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence substantially. The only reason we were able to defeat Britian in the revolutionary war was the people's guns. By the way, one of the meanings of militia is "armed force". last time I checked the British Army was an armed force.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 By the way, one of the meanings of militia is "armed force". last time I checked the British Army was an armed force. 621229[/snapback] And "one of" the meanings of "bear arms" is to have the visible characteristic of having limbs on the upper torso. It doesn't matter what "one of" the meanings is, it matters what THE MEANING is. The British Army was not a militia. And the Second Amendment does not guarantee the population's right of rebellion against the military.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 And "one of" the meanings of "bear arms" is to have the visible characteristic of having limbs on the upper torso. It doesn't matter what "one of" the meanings is, it matters what THE MEANING is. The British Army was not a militia. And the Second Amendment does not guarantee the population's right of rebellion against the military. 621235[/snapback] A lot of folks think that though.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 And "one of" the meanings of "bear arms" is to have the visible characteristic of having limbs on the upper torso. It doesn't matter what "one of" the meanings is, it matters what THE MEANING is. The British Army was not a militia. And the Second Amendment does not guarantee the population's right of rebellion against the military. 621235[/snapback] I apologize you are right(or should I say extreme left). Hey, the constituion probably meant that we have the right to bear(big fuzzy animal) arms. Why would a group of people that just had to overthrow the ruling government be concerned about preserving the right to revolt against the government! It doesn't get much clearer than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 It doesn't get much clearer than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". 621263[/snapback] A statement which is a HELL of a lot more effective than trying to analyse the context of a 225-year old comma.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Author Posted March 8, 2006 A statement which is a HELL of a lot more effective than trying to analyse the context of a 225-year old comma. 621437[/snapback] to analyze it 225 years is better in my opinion.
ASCI Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. Therefore the power to arm must remain in the hands of the people.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 to analyze it 225 years is better in my opinion. 621547[/snapback] Yeah, it's "analyse"...if you're a !@#$ing Limey, you dumb jarhead.
Chilly Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 This post was not about gun ownership, but rrather that these two protesters were arrested for protesting Clinton. My point, which you guys all missed, is if it was Bush it would have been front page news that their right to freedom of speech was taken away. but since it was Clinton it's okay. 621083[/snapback] We didn't miss it, we just thought it was dumb.
EC-Bills Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 This post was not about gun ownership, but rrather that these two protesters were arrested for protesting Clinton. My point, which you guys all missed, is if it was Bush it would have been front page news that their right to freedom of speech was taken away. but since it was Clinton it's okay. 621083[/snapback] I am sorry this article caused you so much distress.
Recommended Posts