Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?
Cole Firearms Inc.
Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?
2nd Amendment advocates worry over opinions of OSHA nominee
Posted: November 11, 2009
8:56 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
� 2009 WorldNetDaily
Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most
significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years soon
could come in the form of a workplace "safety" regulation under
President Obama's nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University
professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and
Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George Soros.
"The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health advocate
also seems to have strong views on firearms," wrote Walter Olson at
Overlawyered.com.
"That's by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA,
because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health
menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to
urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on
company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the
protection of co-workers."
WND has reported on Obama's czars and has published a Whistleblower
magazine issue on the "shadow government" officials gradually being
installed in positions of power in Washington.
Two already have met problems. Green jobs czar Van Jones quit his post
after reporting, largely by WND, of his self-described communist beliefs
and his belief that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks.
Also, White House communications director Anita Dunn, who launched a
verbal assault on Fox News as an "arm" of the GOP, reportedly will step
down this month.
Now comes Michaels, who although he would have to be approved by the
U.S. Senate, comes with views that concern Second Amendment advocates.
Only two years ago, Michaels condemned proposals in Georgia and Florida
that would have allowed workers to carry guns to and from their places
of work for protection.
He continued in his 2007 writing to laud the ability of the federal
government to respond by creating new laws to ban activities or behaviors.
David Michaels
"When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any
single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects
of the story bring it to the public's attention, our nation invariably
demands more and stronger regulation, not less," Michaels wrote at the time.
"We saw this recently with the disaster at West Virginia's Sago Mine,
when a mine explosion and failed rescue attempts resulted in the deaths
of 14 miners. Within months, Congress passed the Mine Improvement and
New Emergency Response (MINER) Act," he said.
"This is not true only of recent times. On the heels of the Elixir
Sulfanilamide scandal, in which a medicine manufactured with antifreeze
killed scores of children, Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act of 1938, requiring for the first time that pharmaceutical
manufacturers prove the safety of their products before marketing them,"
he continued.
"It's hard to count all of the lives that this Act has saved, but one
example stands out: The United States avoided the plague of
thalidomide-related birth defects that ravaged Europe in the early 1960s
as a result of controls granted the FDA under that legislation. A
regulatory hero, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Kelsey, had blocked
U.S. licensing of thalidomide on the basis of inadequate safety data,"
he wrote.
"In the U.S., we see an average of one gun-related homicide every 45
minutes, or 32 each day," he wrote. "These are usually treated as
isolated incidents, until a horrific event like the Virginia Tech
massacre reawakens the public and strengthens public health advocates
who are attempting to prevent gun violence."
At RedCounty.com, writer Bryan Myrick noted that the Washington Times
has urged the Senate to reject Michaels' nomination.
"OSHA is an agency that already has a well-earned reputation for abusing
its authority and reaching beyond its stated purpose. Add one zealot and
it easily becomes an oppressive entity with immense power over all
American businesses, large and small. At a time in which America's
businesses desperately need the freedom to responsibly pursue earning
profits and put workers back on the payroll, the chemical potency of
combining Obama's left-wing agenda with an anti-business zealot manager
at OSHA could prove toxic," Myrick wrote.
The first vote on Michaels' nomination already was canceled by the
Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions.
At the Examiner, gun rights writer David Codrea warned that some "public
health" excuse could be used for imposing draconian restrictions on gun
owners.
He cited the comment from a director of the CDC's National Center for
Injury Control and Prevention that, "We need to revolutionize the way we
look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty,
deadly, and banned."
"Does anyone doubt that Michaels will bring a similarly creative agenda
to apply through regulatory measures under the guise of 'occupational
safety and health?'" he asked.
The BD Law firm in Washington posted a statement that Michaels is
expected to bring major changes if approved. The law firm quoted
Michaels' writing from earlier this year that OSHA "badly needs a change
in direction and philosophy" and it should include a "campaign to change
the workplace culture of safety."
The National Gun Rights organization called him an "anti-gunner."
Columnist Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute in Colorado said,
"Plenty of Obama's administration appointees have a longer record of
anti-gun activism than David Michaels, but perhaps none of them have the
ability to make such a dramatic, instant change in the lives of
law-abiding gun owners.
"By its own fiat, OSHA could outlaw the possession of firearms in every
workplace and every employee parking lot in the United States," he wrote.
"That David Michaels is anti-gun is undisputed," he continued.
"The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution means that a valid
federal law or regulation wins in any conflict with a state law. Many
states have laws that protect the rights of employees to store lawful
firearms in parking lots at work. If an OSHA regulation prohibiting such
storage existed, the federal regulation would trump state law," he said.
"Under Michaels, OSHA could write a regulation stating that it is
illegal for any business to allow guns in the workplace or in parking
lots. No handgun could be locked in the trunk of a car, even if the
owner has a Right-to-Carry license. No rifle could be stored in the car,
even if there�s no ammunition around and the gun will be dropped off at
the gunsmith after work," he said.
Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, had supported Washington, D.C.'s
ban on handguns before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. And
since Obama has been in office, he's already advocated for a treaty that
would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition,
has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to
require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and
sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun
positions.
Besides its reporting on Van Jones and Anita Dunn, WND previously
reported on the controversy over the appointment of Kevin Jennings, a
homosexual rights promoter, to oversee the office of school safety in
the Department of Education.
Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein also has, among other issues, stated that
marriage discriminates against singles.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:ifCdnabu87fTqmHX...@giganews.com:
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115720
>
> Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?
> 2nd Amendment advocates worry over opinions of OSHA nominee
>
> Posted: November 11, 2009
> 8:56 pm Eastern
>
> By Bob Unruh
> � 2009 WorldNetDaily
>
> Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most
> significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years
> soon could come in the form of a workplace "safety" regulation under
> President Obama's nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and
> Health Administration.
>
> Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University
> professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and
> Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George Soros.
>
> "The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health
> advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms," wrote Walter
> Olson at Overlawyered.com.
>
>
More incredible hypocrisy. Americans do far more killing with cars than
with guns but the auto industry makes a fortune off car crashes and pays
congress and the media to allow the highway killing and focus on guns
instead!!.
ronea...@att.net
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:ifCdnabu87fTqmHX...@giganews.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
.
.
Although Ralph Nader might disagree, automobiles are not specifically
designed to kill people. Guns are. And despite what you might think,
I am not in favor of abolishing private gun ownership.
I am challenging your silly logic.
RO
pyjamarama
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:ifCdnabu87fTqmHX...@giganews.com:
Is there a guaranteed constitutional right that he hasn't trash-
talked?
Excepting of course the "penumbral right" to abortion?
RD (The Sandman)
news:3143181a-c049-4b11...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 10:50�am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> innews:ifCdnabu
> 87fTqmHXnZ2d...@giganews.com:
I think the focus is on the number of deaths, not the design of the
instrument.
And despite what you might think,
> I am not in favor of abolishing private gun ownership.
>
> I am challenging your silly logic.
Hmmmmm,......
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Stile4aly
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:ifCdnabu87fTqmHX...@giganews.com:
Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
period, and they go apoplectic.
pyjamarama
The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
I musta missed that.
RD (The Sandman)
news:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 9:50�am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> innews:ifCdnabu
> 87fTqmHXnZ2d...@giganews.com:
Absolutely not true. That is only to normally operate a car on public
roads. One can drive farm vehicles (even on those public roads), race
cars, dune buggies, and all sorts of other vehicles without being
licensed.
> But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
> period, and they go apoplectic.
Of course......after all, there is NICS. Perhaps you may have heard of
it. It is called an instant background check. No need for any waiting
period.
RD (The Sandman)
news:0011112a-d376-4eee...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 11:40�am, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 9:50�am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>>
>>
>>
>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> > innews:ifCdna
> bu87fTqmHXnZ2...@giganews.com:
Well, to be technical, currently, ownership of guns being protected by
the Constitution only applies to Washington, DC. Perhaps, McDonald v
Chicago will clear that up even more. I sure hope so since although my
state constitution protects that right to keep and bear arms, I want to
make sure the feds must respect that right also.
Bert Hyman
Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
> locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are inspected
and registered before they can be operated on government roads.
Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
Yet, scores of thousands of people are killed with automobiles every
year.
So, what's your point?
> But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
> period, and they go apoplectic.
When The State starts spending as much on facilities for gun owners as
it does for car owners, you get back to me about that.
Besides, your waiting periods, registration and licensing schemes only
apply to the law abiding, so again, what's your point, exactly?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
news:0011112a-d376-4eee...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com
pyjamarama <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> I musta missed that.
Yes, you "musta."
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Demon Buddha
> Although Ralph Nader might disagree, automobiles are not specifically
> designed to kill people. Guns are.
First, guns are designed to accurately place projectiles on target.
The logic of your position is that a .22 free pistol is designed to kill
people. Last I checked, they are designed to kill paper.
Second, even if we grant your false premise, so what? Intent of design
is irrelevant. Intent of use is what counts.
May I recommend you enroll in a class in ultra-remedial logic and
reasoning? You appear to be in dire need.
Berry Oakley
> In news:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
>>locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
Bullshit!
> Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are inspected
> and registered before they can be operated on government roads.
Key point!
To be used on and OPERATED on "goverment" made roads.
Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private property.
> Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
heh!
They might be tested, taxed, and licensed, but very few are "trained."
Any moron can park a car.
> Yet, scores of thousands of people are killed with automobiles every
> year.
>
> So, what's your point?
>>But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
>>period, and they go apoplectic.
Tell a man and woman that they have to pass a test before fucking, and
see how fast they will push your face into the back of your skull.
Then, also tell ANYONE that they don't have the right to defend
themselves or children, Stile4aly.
> When The State starts spending as much on facilities for gun owners as
> it does for car owners, you get back to me about that.
>
> Besides, your waiting periods, registration and licensing schemes only
> apply to the law abiding, so again, what's your point, exactly?
If only Stile4aly's parents had to wait before making the mistake they made.
Scout
Really? Please indicate the design charateristics, parameters or features
which establish that the following examples are "designed to kill people."
A benchrest rifle
A target pistol
A skeet shotgun
A varmint rifle
A deer rifle
A hunting pistol
Because, the only guns I know of that are purpose built to kill people are
those built specifically for assassination.
> And despite what you might think,
> I am not in favor of abolishing private gun ownership.
Somehow, I doubt that.
> I am challenging your silly logic.
And yet, that is a reasonable question to ask and is considerably more
logical than your assertion that all guns are designed to kill people, or it
should make a difference on why we shouldn't treat these items equally.
Scout
Actrually there isn't. Indeed I own one car that has no seat belts, no
airbags, or any ignition locks.
Yet it is perfectly legal to own, and I drive it faily regularly on public
roads.
> in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
Actually, I was legally driving when I was 11. Minimum age for a driver's
license in my state at that time was 16.
Care to try that assertion again?
> But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
> period, and they go apoplectic.
Try telling a car owner that there should be a 3 day waiting period.
Bet there would be a whole lot of unhappy car owners.
However, I am curious, what exactly do you think is gained by imposing a 3
day waiting period, particularly for someone who already owns guns?
Stile4aly
> Bert Hyman wrote:
> > Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> > Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
> >>locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
>
> Bullshit!
Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
> > Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are inspected
> > and registered before they can be operated on government roads.
>
> Key point!
> To be used on and OPERATED on "goverment" made roads.
> Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private property.
Not knowing your state laws, I can't say whether this is true or not.
> > Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
>
> heh!
> They might be tested, taxed, and licensed, but very few are "trained."
> Any moron can park a car.
In order to get my license at 16 I had to show that I had completed x
hours of drivers ed.
>
> > Yet, scores of thousands of people are killed with automobiles every
> > year.
>
> > So, what's your point?
> >>But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
> >>period, and they go apoplectic.
>
> Tell a man and woman that they have to pass a test before fucking, and
> see how fast they will push your face into the back of your skull.
> Then, also tell ANYONE that they don't have the right to defend
> themselves or children, Stile4aly.
I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to defend yourself.
I'm not even suggesting that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I'm
not even particularly wedded to the idea of a 3 day waiting period.
My point is that gun advocates tend to be against *any* form of
regulation, even instant background checks.
> > When The State starts spending as much on facilities for gun owners as
> > it does for car owners, you get back to me about that.
>
> > Besides, your waiting periods, registration and licensing schemes only
> > apply to the law abiding, so again, what's your point, exactly?
>
> If only Stile4aly's parents had to wait before making the mistake they made.
Not even going to dignify that comment with a response.
Clairbear
> On Nov 12, 10:50�am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> innews:ifCdnabu
> 87fTqmHXnZ2d...@giganews.com:
How many guns did McVeigh use? How many guns did the 911 hijackers use?
Why have so few serial murders used guns? No doubt guns have been used
by murders but what percentage of LEGAL guns ahve ever been used in a
crime
According to the FBI
200 million registered guns
14.180 Murders in 2008
66.9% were fire arms 13.4% were Knives or cutting instruments
13.9% were other dangerous weapons 6.1% were persnal weapons(hands,
fists,feet, etc)
Concerning the known circumstances surrounding murders, 42.0 percent of
victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in
2008. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for
22.9 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.3 percent of
reported homicides.
Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders,
23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were
murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances
(neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.)
Gee I guess we should make Arguments and personal relatioships illegal,
and register knives, fists, hands, feet and all other possible weapons
so we can regulate them,too, according to your illogic I wonder how many
of the firearms were illegal obtainede
> And despite what you might think,
> I am not in favor of abolishing private gun ownership.
You have love Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia They were the only 2 nation
to abalish gun right in the last century and I think we all know where
that led
> I am challenging your silly logic.
With vastly more silly logic of your own,obviously
> RO
>
Scout
> On Nov 12, 3:16 pm, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>> Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>> Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
>>>> locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
>>
>> Bullshit!
>
> Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
> manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
Really? Then why doesn't my car have ANY of these things?
It was manufacturerd in the USA by a major automotive manufacturer for use
on public roads and is regularly used there.
I will simply note your attempted back pedal from the addition of the
conditions "manufactured for use on" and "public roads".
>>> Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are
>>> inspected and registered before they can be operated on government
>>> roads.
>>
>> Key point!
>> To be used on and OPERATED on "goverment" made roads.
>> Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private
>> property.
>
> Not knowing your state laws, I can't say whether this is true or not.
You know YOUR state laws, right?
So which statutes, if any, in your state would make doing this illegal?
Somehow I suspect you will be unable to produce any.
>>> Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
>>
>> heh!
>> They might be tested, taxed, and licensed, but very few are
>> "trained."
>> Any moron can park a car.
>
> In order to get my license at 16 I had to show that I had completed x
> hours of drivers ed.
That's nice, but not everyone is you, nor live where you did.
However, I would like to see a cite for that statute if it still exists
because I am unaware of any state that requires Drivers Ed to get a license.
>>> Yet, scores of thousands of people are killed with automobiles every
>>> year.
>>
>>> So, what's your point?
>>>> But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
>>>> period, and they go apoplectic.
>>
>> Tell a man and woman that they have to pass a test before fucking,
>> and
>> see how fast they will push your face into the back of your skull.
>> Then, also tell ANYONE that they don't have the right to defend
>> themselves or children, Stile4aly.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to defend yourself.
> I'm not even suggesting that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I'm
> not even particularly wedded to the idea of a 3 day waiting period.
> My point is that gun advocates tend to be against *any* form of
> regulation, even instant background checks.
Well, given how such mandates have been misused before to restrict guns to
the point of imposing defacto bans Unconstitutionally for decades, I think
that such reluctance is perfectly understandable.
Wouldn't you?
>>> When The State starts spending as much on facilities for gun owners
>>> as it does for car owners, you get back to me about that.
>>
>>> Besides, your waiting periods, registration and licensing schemes
>>> only apply to the law abiding, so again, what's your point, exactly?
>>
>> If only Stile4aly's parents had to wait before making the mistake
>> they made.
>
> Not even going to dignify that comment with a response.
You just did.
SaPeIsMa
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
#
# Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
# locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
First, guns are constitutionally protect while cars are not.
Second, even without the testing, licensing, airbags, setbelts, ignition
locks, etc, there are more than 42,000 accidental deaths, and milions of
injuries with cars, while with NONE of those kinds of things, there are
less than 900 accidental deaths and about 10,000 injuries with guns.
# But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
# period, and they go apoplectic.
And do you have ANY EVIDENCE that a 3-day waiting period has ANY usefull
purpose ?
Not just theory but actual DATA to justify it ?
Your stupidity and ignorance is not our problem
Educate yourself before you propose things that do NOTHING to address a
(false) problem.
SaPeIsMa
#
# I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to defend yourself.
# I'm not even suggesting that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I'm
# not even particularly wedded to the idea of a 3 day waiting period.
# My point is that gun advocates tend to be against *any* form of
# regulation, even instant background checks.
That's because history has shown us that gun-control is like cancer
If you don't eradicate it, it tends to grow until it becomes a gun ban, and
gun seizure
Just look at countries like the UK, Canada Australia, not to mention
other places like Mexico, where the Constitution (allegedly) protects the
right of Mexicans to be armed, but a variety of "regulations" have
effectively eliminated that right.
RD (The Sandman)
news:49e4f67f-6656-4a5f...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 3:16�pm, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> > Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.
>> > com Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
>> >>locks, etc. �in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
>>
>> Bullshit!
>
> Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
> manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
Now that you added "for use on public roads" you are more correct.
>> > Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are
>> > inspected and registered before they can be operated on government
>> > roads.
>>
>> Key point!
>> � To be used on and OPERATED on "goverment" made roads.
>> Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private
>> property.
>
> Not knowing your state laws, I can't say whether this is true or not.
It is true in every state in the land. Cars and trucks used as farm
vehicles and only temporarily used on public roads do not need licensing
or registration like other cars to do so.
>> > Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
>>
>> heh!
>> � They might be tested, taxed, and licensed, but very few are
>> "trained.
> "
>> Any moron can park a car.
>
> In order to get my license at 16 I had to show that I had completed x
> hours of drivers ed.
However, there are many places one can drive an automobile without a need
for that license.
>> > Yet, scores of thousands of people are killed with automobiles
>> > every year.
>>
>> > So, what's your point?
>> >>But tell a gun owner that maybe there should be a 3 day waiting
>> >>period, and they go apoplectic.
>>
>> Tell a man and woman that they have to pass a test before fucking,
>> and see how fast they will push your face into the back of your
>> skull. Then, also tell ANYONE that they don't have the right to
>> defend themselves or children, Stile4aly.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to defend yourself.
> I'm not even suggesting that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I'm
> not even particularly wedded to the idea of a 3 day waiting period.
> My point is that gun advocates tend to be against *any* form of
> regulation, even instant background checks.
Wouldn't you agree that it would be rather ludicrous for me to have to
run a background check on my brother before I can give him one of my
guns?
Most of us are not against *any* form of regulation, that is your
strawman, you feed him. Some of the regulations, like felons not being
able to possess one, or a baby not being able to purchase one or a mental
adjudication not being able to own one are fine. However, mandatory
child safely locks, mandatory locking of firearms, etc.. are not.
Scout
> Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:49e4f67f-6656-4a5f...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 12, 3:16 pm, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>> Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.
>>>> com Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags, ignition
>>>>> locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
>>>
>>> Bullshit!
>>
>> Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
>> manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
>
> Now that you added "for use on public roads" you are more correct.
More correct, but still lacking a necessary temporal aspect that until
address with continue to make his claim false.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> On Nov 12, 10:50�am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
HAHAHA. What difference does that make you moron?. If your kid was killed
by a reckless driver, you'd say "thank god it was a car not a gun". You
are an idiot.!!!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:21e03fdd-2e8a-474b...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
That's america. The govt tramples on constitutional rights like RKBA while
it invents rights like the right to an abortion!!!
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
HAHAHA. So now you lib loons think we should put seatbelts on guns?
>
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:2t0Lm.13062$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad:
>
> Actually, I was legally driving when I was 11. Minimum age for a
> driver's license in my state at that time was 16.
>
So how were you legally driving at 11? Was it on private property.?
Berry Oakley
I would never say "thank god" you drunken slut.
Berry Oakley
Ooooo! Judy found a Smart pill!
lorad
> On Nov 12, 10:50 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> .
> Although Ralph Nader might disagree, automobiles are not specifically
> I am not in favor of abolishing private gun ownership.
>
Unfortunately the constitutional right to drive cars does not exist.
However the right to have possession of arms is constitutional right.
Scout
I would have to disagree with this statement as written. The is IMO, a
constitutional right to drive it's just not a specifially enumerated right.
Would fall IMO under the right to travel which is a long established common
law right.
Scout
Well, it's a reasonable guess, but still totally wrong, since there is NO
minmum age to drive in certain conditions in many states.
Looks like her smart pill was a dud.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-303
Scout
Easy. It wasn't and isn't illegal.
> Was it on private property.?
Private property and public roads.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-303
I will note this is similar to many other states.
So much for the bullshit claim that one has to be licensed and/or tested to
drive, even on public roads.
.
RD (The Sandman)
news:siquf552r9va5thu2...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:00:17 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:49e4f67f-6656-4a5f...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 12, 3:16 pm, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>> > Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroup
> Nah, I'd let a baby buy one. If he can walk in plop the cash on the
> counter, he ought to be able to walk out armed.
I don't....however, I do believe that we need to set straight just when
someone is legally considered an adult. One needs to be 21 for some
stuff, like booze, but at 18 a youth can get married, buy a rifle, but
not a handgun. But he can vote and be sent by the president to die on
foreign soil. It really should be one age or the other. I don't care
which.
Wayne
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC4700EC...@216.196.97.130...
between 25 and 30, when a kid begins to finally "get it". :)
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
> roneal1...@att.net wrote innews:3143181a-c049-4b11...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 10:50 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> innews:ifCdnabu
>
> >> >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115720
>
> >> > Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?
> >> > 2nd Amendment advocates worry over opinions of OSHA nominee
>
> >> > Posted: November 11, 2009
> >> > 8:56 pm Eastern
>
> >> > By Bob Unruh
> >> > © 2009 WorldNetDaily
>
> >> > Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most
> >> > significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years
> >> > soon could come in the form of a workplace "safety" regulation
> >> > under President Obama's nominee to run the federal Occupational
> >> > Safety and Health Administration.
>
> >> > Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University
> >> > professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and
> >> > Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George
> >> > Soros.
>
> >> > "The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health
> >> > advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms," wrote Walter
> >> > Olson at Overlawyered.com.
>
> >> than with guns but the auto industry makes a fortune off car crashes
> >> and pays congress and the media to allow the highway killing and
> >> focus on guns instead!!.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > .
> > Although Ralph Nader might disagree, automobiles are not specifically
> > designed to kill people. Guns are.
>
> instrument.
Yes, that's why it's flawed logic, and therefore a meaningless
statement. It could not be expressed as a syllogism....
>
> And despite what you might think,
>
> > I am not in favor of abolishing private gun ownership.
>
> > I am challenging your silly logic.
>
> Hmmmmm,......
>
> --
> Sleep well tonight,
>
> RD (The Sandman)
Pretentious, aren't you?
Toodle pip,
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
> a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
> it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
> hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
> pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
> Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
> What could possibly go wrong?- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Nov 12, 11:40 am, Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:50 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>
> > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:ifCdnabu87fTqmHX...@giganews.com:
>
> > > >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115720
>
> > > > Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?
> > > > 2nd Amendment advocates worry over opinions of OSHA nominee
>
> > > > Posted: November 11, 2009
> > > > 8:56 pm Eastern
>
> > > > By Bob Unruh
> > > > © 2009 WorldNetDaily
>
> > > > Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most
> > > > significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years
> > > > soon could come in the form of a workplace "safety" regulation under
> > > > President Obama's nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and
> > > > Health Administration.
>
> > > > Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University
> > > > professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and
> > > > Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George Soros.
>
> > > > "The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health
> > > > advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms," wrote Walter
> > > > Olson at Overlawyered.com.
>
> > > More incredible hypocrisy. Americans do far more killing with cars than
> > > with guns but the auto industry makes a fortune off car crashes and pays
> > > congress and the media to allow the highway killing and focus on guns
> > > instead!!.
>
> > locks, etc. in order to use a car you must be tested and licensed.
> > period, and they go apoplectic.
>
Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service in
the militia.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> I musta missed that.- Hide quoted text -
pyjamarama
wrote:
Not so -- the Bill of Rights describe INDIVIDUAL rights.
Always have.
The 2nd is no different.
The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
Do your homework.
Scout
SCOTUS clearly disagrees.
However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of the 2nd
Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for English Grammar,
you believe the right is conditionally linked to the militia.
Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a "nominative
absolute" is.
Gray Ghost
news:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
I see you're excerising your right to be stupid.
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
SaPeIsMa
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
# Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service in
# the militia.
#
# Dr. Barry Worthington
One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension skills
The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities associated
with a militia
That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
tankfixer
mygarb...@verizon.net says...
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC4700EC...@216.196.97.130...
> > Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
> > news:siquf552r9va5thu2...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:00:17 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>>news:49e4f67f-6656-4a5f...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 12, 3:16Â pm, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
> >>>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
> >>>>> > Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroup
> >>>>> > s. com Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> >>Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags,
> >>>>> >>and licensed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bullshit!
> >>>>
> >>>> Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
> >>>> manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
> >>>
> >>>Now that you added "for use on public roads" you are more correct.
> >>>
> >>>>> > Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are
> >>>>> > inspected and registered before they can be operated on
> >>>>> > government roads.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Key point!
> >>>>> Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private
> >>>>> property.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not knowing your state laws, I can't say whether this is true or
> >>>> not.
> >>>
> >>>It is true in every state in the land. Cars and trucks used as farm
> >>>vehicles and only temporarily used on public roads do not need
> >>>licensing or registration like other cars to do so.
> >>>
> >>>>> > Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> heh!
You volunteer to serve your country for two years and when you finish
that term THEN you can vote...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Actually, it is.....if you bother to read it properly....
>
> The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
You must have been a disappointment to your English teacher...
>
> Do your homework.
Did you?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> > > I musta missed that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
Then it is wrong. Lwyers often show no historical sense in their
judgements....
>
> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of the 2nd
> Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for English Grammar,
> you believe the right is conditionally linked to the militia.
>
> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a "nominative
> absolute" is.
Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
grammatical construction. You should realise that grammar is not the
precise thing that people think it is....especially in the eighteenth
century. I have expressed the standard historical interpretation of
this 'right'....
But thankyou for a measured and civil response......
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
If 'Scout' can be civil, why can't you? Did no-one teach you manners,
you sad little monomaniac?
> --
> “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
> of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston
> Churchill- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> #
> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service in
> # the militia.
> #
> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension skills
Another ill-mannered oaf!
>
> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities associated
> with a militia
Not in this historical context.... The phrase 'bear arms' should give
you a clue.
> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
Dr. Barry Worthington
SaPeIsMa
# Then it is wrong. Lwyers often show no historical sense in their
# judgements....
LOL
And naturally, you are FAR MORE expert about the law of the US Constitution
than the Supreme Court ?
DOH !!
>
> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of the 2nd
> Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for English Grammar,
> you believe the right is conditionally linked to the militia.
>
> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a "nominative
> absolute" is.
#
# Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
# grammatical construction. You should realise that grammar is not the
# precise thing that people think it is....especially in the eighteenth
# century. I have expressed the standard historical interpretation of
# this 'right'....
Sure you did
Too bad that the AUTHORS of the 2nd Amendment have CLEARLY STATED in OTHER
documents that they considered the right ot be armed and INDIVIDUAL right
UNCONNECTED to militia service
B ut naturally, you are ignorant of that little tidbit as well
But just to educate you some more on the Queen's English, why don't you read
these.
http://www.largo.org/literary.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
Bama Brian
It should be eighteen. Especially since the fedgov can draft soldiers
at that age. If that's not an admission of when a youth becomes an
adult, then there is no such time in this culture.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Bama Brian
> In article <hdpg3m$37p$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> mygarb...@verizon.net says...
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CC4700EC...@216.196.97.130...
>>> Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
>>> news:siquf552r9va5thu2...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:00:17 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:49e4f67f-6656-4a5f...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 12, 3:16ￜ pm, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. com Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags,
>>>>>>>>> and licensed.
>>>>>>> Bullshit!
>>>>>> Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
>>>>>> manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
>>>>> Now that you added "for use on public roads" you are more correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are
>>>>>>>> inspected and registered before they can be operated on
>>>>>>>> government roads.
>>>>>>> Key point!
>>>>>>> Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private
>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>> Not knowing your state laws, I can't say whether this is true or
>>>>>> not.
>>>>> It is true in every state in the land. Cars and trucks used as farm
>>>>> vehicles and only temporarily used on public roads do not need
>>>>> licensing or registration like other cars to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
>>>>>>> heh!
Voting should be reserved solely for taxpayers. No responsibility for
taxes, then you you don't get to vote for bread and circuses or other
such "freebies".
Bama Brian
BZZZT! Wrong! And another example of the fine ehjumacation provided by
the fedgov's public indoctrination skools checks in...
SaPeIsMa
On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
> messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> #
> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service in
> # the militia.
> #
> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension skills
# Another ill-mannered oaf!
#
What is better, an informed but "ill-mannered oaf" or a well-mannered
ignoramus and idiot ?
I'll take the first every time
>
> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities associated
> with a militia
#
# Not in this historical context.... The phrase 'bear arms' should give
# you a clue.
LOL
More ignorance from an alleged English teacher
The verb "to bear" is NOT used exclusively as a military term
For Example "to bear children", puts the lie to that
It is also UNTRUE that "to bear arms" is or was ONLY used in a military
context
Since your claim is false, so is your argument
> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
#
# Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
#
Funny,
You just claimed you were an English teacher a few posts ago
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
+ news:8f4e6cab-01dc-4a5d-99f9-+
409f5c...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
+
+ Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
+ grammatical construction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you also claiming that historians arguing the law should be ignorant of
the law ?
So far you've shoveled manure and ignorant cant, and have been unable to
support your claims
Maybe you should "run along"
Scout
Interesting claim, no factual basis, but still interesting.
However, I am perfectly willing to examine your evidence that SCOTUS had no
historical sense when they rendered their ruling.
>> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of
>> the 2nd Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for
>> English Grammar, you believe the right is conditionally linked to
>> the militia.
>>
>> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a
>> "nominative absolute" is.
>
> Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> grammatical construction.
I feel sorry for your students. Wonder how many of them had to take remedial
English because they had you for a teacher?
>You should realise that grammar is not the
> precise thing that people think it is....especially in the eighteenth
> century. I have expressed the standard historical interpretation of
> this 'right'....
No, you have expressed your particular unsupported assertion.
I will simply acknowledge your claim that you feel the Founding Fathers were
ignorant of the English language.
> But thankyou for a measured and civil response......
And it certainly looks like I wasted my time, since I still didn't get any
support for your claim from you.
Just more empty assertions.
Dr. Barry Worthington
I should think that a reading of Blackstone or the Federalist Papers
might be sufficient.....
>
> However, I am perfectly willing to examine your evidence that SCOTUS had no
> historical sense when they rendered their ruling.
As I said, I'm not interested in modern legal interpretations. I'm a
historian, not a lawyer.
>
> >> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of
> >> the 2nd Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for
> >> English Grammar, you believe the right is conditionally linked to
> >> the militia.
>
> >> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a
> >> "nominative absolute" is.
>
> > Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> > grammatical construction.
>
> I feel sorry for your students. Wonder how many of them had to take remedial
> English because they had you for a teacher?
I thought that, unlike the rest of the posters, you were civil. Why do
you have to be as mean minded as them?
>
> >You should realise that grammar is not the
> > precise thing that people think it is....especially in the eighteenth
> > century. I have expressed the standard historical interpretation of
> > this 'right'....
>
> No, you have expressed your particular unsupported assertion.
>
> I will simply acknowledge your claim that you feel the Founding Fathers were
> ignorant of the English language.
Eighteenth century usage of English? You actually think that there is
a standard English?
>
> > But thankyou for a measured and civil response......
>
> And it certainly looks like I wasted my time, since I still didn't get any
> support for your claim from you.
>
> Just more empty assertions.
What is this? Argument by oujah board? You should express yourself
clearer.
Now, if you are not prepared to be civil, I will ignore you....
Scout
> tankfixer wrote:
>> In article <hdpg3m$37p$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> mygarb...@verizon.net says...
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9CC4700EC...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
>>>> news:siquf552r9va5thu2...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:00:17 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:49e4f67f-6656-4a5f...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Innews:af6d7606-920b-4a43...@37g2000yqm.googlegroup
>>>>>>>>> s. com Stile4aly <stile4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Cars are required to have things like seatbelts, airbags,
>>>>>>>>>> tested and licensed.
>>>>>>>> Bullshit!
>>>>>>> Any care manufactured for use on public roads in the US must be
>>>>>>> manufactured with seatbelts, airbags, catalytic converters, etc.
>>>>>> Now that you added "for use on public roads" you are more
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>> Cars are manufactured to strict government standards, and are
>>>>>>>>> inspected and registered before they can be operated on
>>>>>>>>> government roads.
>>>>>>>> Key point!
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I can make my own car, and drive it on my private
>>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>> Not knowing your state laws, I can't say whether this is true or
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>> It is true in every state in the land. Cars and trucks used as
>>>>>> farm vehicles and only temporarily used on public roads do not
>>>>>> need licensing or registration like other cars to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Drivers are trained, tested and licensed as well.
>>>>>>>> heh!
I agree.
No pay, No play.
Scout
> On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
>> messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>>
>> #
>> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service
>> in # the militia.
>> #
>> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
>> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension
>> skills
>
> Another ill-mannered oaf!
You call him ill-mannered however his observation is a calm polite
evaluation of the character you have displayed.
The language doesn't say what you claim, and for someone who claims to be an
English teacher you should know this.
>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
>> associated
>> with a militia
>
> Not in this historical context....
This please present this "historical context"
>The phrase 'bear arms' should give
> you a clue.
Feel free to demonstrate what you claim the historical contest of "bear
arms" means, because I can already produce a historical context using
bearing arms for hunting.
>> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
>> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
>
> Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
And yet you claim to know history so well that you can tell SCOTUS they
don't understand the historical context. Interesting.
Scout
By "properly" you mean with utter disregard for what it actually means....
>> The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
>
> You must have been a disappointment to your English teacher...
Actually, he seems to have passed English, you on the other hand see a
conditional statement where none exists.
>> Do your homework.
>
> Did you?
He did, you didn't.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:0597af71-1747-4d61...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
> > messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> > #
> > # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service in
> > # the militia.
> > #
> > # Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> > One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
> > It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension skills
>
> #
> # Another ill-mannered oaf!
> #
>
> What is better, an informed but "ill-mannered oaf" or a well-mannered
> ignoramus and idiot ?
> I'll take the first every time
Will you? What makes you think that you are 'informed'?
> > The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities associated
> > with a militia
>
> #
> # Not in this historical context.... The phrase 'bear arms' should give
> # you a clue.
>
> LOL
> More ignorance from an alleged English teacher
I taught English (amongst other things) in a school, long before I
moved into Higher Education.
> The verb "to bear" is NOT used exclusively as a military term
> For Example "to bear children", puts the lie to that
But that is irrelevant to this context, is't it. We are talking about
a phrase that can only mean one thing.
> It is also UNTRUE that "to bear arms" is or was ONLY used in a military
> context
How do you know? Are you familiar with eighteenth century English, and
the documents of the time? With the militia debates on both sides of
the Atlantic?
> Since your claim is false, so is your argument
On your sayso, you silly man?
>
> > That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> > A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
>
> #
> # Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
> #
>
> Funny,
> You just claimed you were an English teacher a few posts ago
I have a history degree and have undertaken historical research
(including part of my Doctorate).
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
> + news:8f4e6cab-01dc-4a5d-99f9-+
> 409f5ce62...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> +
> + Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> + grammatical construction.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Are you also claiming that historians arguing the law should be ignorant of
> the law ?
Lawyers are sometimes guily of interpreting legislation without
considering the historical context.
>
> So far you've shoveled manure and ignorant cant, and have been unable to
> support your claims
Casting real pearls before genuine swine? In your case, I think
not....
Toodle pip!
Dr. Barry Worthington
pyjamarama
I did -- the operative clause (the second) is a command, and nothing
is the first clause modifies or restricts this command.
You're simply wrong.
Next, you'll tell us that the term "well-regulated" refers to
government intrusion or oversight...
Most leftists get that wrong, too.
>
>
>
> > The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
>
> You must have been a disappointment to your English teacher...
Quite the contrary -- they would've appreciated how I just "schooled"
you.
That's an American slang for having "your porridge peppered"...
Quite.
>
>
>
> > Do your homework.
>
> Did you?
Absolutely -- do you really think that 220 years of American gun
ownership, in theory and in practice, has been illegitimate because a
misguided Brit says so?
Especially in light of the fact that all of the contemporary writings
of the founders confirm their insistence that the right to bear arms
was/is an individual one?
You forget, my good man, that the amendment was crafted as a direct
response to misguided Brits.
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> > On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
> >> messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> >> #
> >> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service
> >> in # the militia.
> >> #
> >> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
> >> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension
> >> skills
>
> > Another ill-mannered oaf!
>
> You call him ill-mannered however his observation is a calm polite
> evaluation of the character you have displayed.
His observation was insulting. And now I am required to question your
judgement...
>
> The language doesn't say what you claim, and for someone who claims to be an
> English teacher you should know this.
On your say so? Oh dear!
>
> >> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
> >> associated
> >> with a militia
>
> > Not in this historical context....
>
> This please present this "historical context"
The historical context of your Bill of Rights!
>
> >The phrase 'bear arms' should give
> > you a clue.
>
> Feel free to demonstrate what you claim the historical contest of "bear
> arms" means, because I can already produce a historical context using
> bearing arms for hunting.
In a eighteenth century document? For God's sake, get a grip!
>
> >> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> >> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
>
> > Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
>
> And yet you claim to know history so well that you can tell SCOTUS they
> don't understand the historical context. Interesting.
And why not? I'm probably as arrogant as you appear to be....
I have misjudged you. You are like the rest.
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
Why do you assume that I'm an American?
Puzzled,
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bama Brian
> Libertarian
> "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
> George Santayana- Hide quoted text -
Scout
I would think that you would have something better than vague references to
stuff you've probably never even bothered to read.
>> However, I am perfectly willing to examine your evidence that SCOTUS
>> had no historical sense when they rendered their ruling.
>
> As I said, I'm not interested in modern legal interpretations. I'm a
> historian, not a lawyer.
And yet, you seem utterly unable to support your claims with anything more
than empty assertions.
Seems you are as good a historian as you were as an English teacher.
>>>> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of
>>>> the 2nd Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for
>>>> English Grammar, you believe the right is conditionally linked to
>>>> the militia.
>>
>>>> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a
>>>> "nominative absolute" is.
>>
>>> Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
>>> grammatical construction.
>>
>> I feel sorry for your students. Wonder how many of them had to take
>> remedial English because they had you for a teacher?
>
> I thought that, unlike the rest of the posters, you were civil. Why do
> you have to be as mean minded as them?
Because, you have shown no indication you understand the language set
forth. You claim superior knowledge, and yet ignore the very fundimental
structure of our language.
So why shouldn't I feel sorry for students of a teach who seems to lack any
real knowledge of the subject he claims to have teached?
Further my being civil has gained me nothing. All you offer are your
unsupported assertions that fly in the face of over 200 years of
understanding.
>>> You should realise that grammar is not the
>>> precise thing that people think it is....especially in the
>>> eighteenth century. I have expressed the standard historical
>>> interpretation of this 'right'....
>>
>> No, you have expressed your particular unsupported assertion.
>>
>> I will simply acknowledge your claim that you feel the Founding
>> Fathers were ignorant of the English language.
>
> Eighteenth century usage of English? You actually think that there is
> a standard English?
Pretty much, yep. Certainly the language has evolved since the 18th Century,
but I see no evidence it has done so to the extent you are claiming. Further
I see nothing from you to support such a claim. All I am getting from you
are empty unsupported assertions and questions. Maybe you should try some
verifiable facts and evidence?
>>> But thankyou for a measured and civil response......
>>
>> And it certainly looks like I wasted my time, since I still didn't
>> get any support for your claim from you.
>>
>> Just more empty assertions.
>
> What is this? Argument by oujah board? You should express yourself
> clearer.
Ok. The let me be clearer. Back up your claims with facts.
> Now, if you are not prepared to be civil, I will ignore you....
I am civil until someone makes claims they can't or won't back up. So if I
am becoming uncivil, you need only look in the mirror to see the reason.
Now, are you going to support your claims and assertions with some
verifiable facts and evidence or shall I expect you to run away because I'm
uncivil with someone who posts crap he can't back up?
Berry Oakley
>>BZZZT! Wrong! And another example of the fine ehjumacation provided by
>>the fedgov's public indoctrination skools checks in...
> Why do you assume that I'm an American?
You can't be an American.
Yer not smart enough to be one, Subject!
Dr. Barry Worthington
It exists.
Now bugger offf........
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >> Do your homework.
>
> > Did you?
>
> He did, you didn't.- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
Rubbish!
>
> You're simply wrong.
No, you are...
>
> Next, you'll tell us that the term "well-regulated" refers to
> government intrusion or oversight...
In the eighteenth century America, it meant the Colonial Governer and
then the State Governer.
>
> Most leftists get that wrong, too.
Really? You mean they don't subscribe to cock-eyed notions of right-
wing nutters forming their own militias?
>
>
>
> > > The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
>
> > You must have been a disappointment to your English teacher...
>
> Quite the contrary -- they would've appreciated how I just "schooled"
> you.
>
> That's an American slang for having "your porridge peppered"...
>
> Quite.
No...I'm the academic with some knowledge of the period.........
>
>
>
> > > Do your homework.
>
> > Did you?
>
> Absolutely -- do you really think that 220 years of American gun
> ownership, in theory and in practice, has been illegitimate because a
> misguided Brit says so?
Well, your version is....
>
> Especially in light of the fact that all of the contemporary writings
> of the founders confirm their insistence that the right to bear arms
> was/is an individual one?
Oh? And where do they argue that?
>
> You forget, my good man, that the amendment was crafted as a direct
> response to misguided Brits.
Actually, it wasn't. The war was long over. Amongst other things it
was a defence against Federal pretensions.
Scout
> On 16 Nov, 16:38, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>> On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
>>>> messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>>
>>>> #
>>>> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service
>>>> in # the militia.
>>>> #
>>>> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>>>> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
>>>> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension
>>>> skills
>>
>>> Another ill-mannered oaf!
>>
>> You call him ill-mannered however his observation is a calm polite
>> evaluation of the character you have displayed.
>
> His observation was insulting.
If his observation is true, then it doesn't matter whether you consider it
insulting.
>And now I am required to question your
> judgement...
Sorry, but the truth can be insulting, but the truth shouldn't be ignored
simply because it offends you.
And so far you have yet to demonstrate any reasonable level of reading or
comprehension skills that can be supported by your presentation of
verifiable facts and evidence.
>> The language doesn't say what you claim, and for someone who claims
>> to be an English teacher you should know this.
>
> On your say so? Oh dear!
Why not? Seems to be good enough for your claims.
Besides I've already given you a clue on what the 2nd doesn't establish the
condition you claim exists. So I've already provided you with evidence to
back up what I say.
Where is your counter evidence?
>>>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
>>>> associated
>>>> with a militia
>>
>>> Not in this historical context....
>>
>> This please present this "historical context"
>
> The historical context of your Bill of Rights!
BZZzzzzzzzttttttttt
Circular logic fallacy.
>>> The phrase 'bear arms' should give
>>> you a clue.
>>
>> Feel free to demonstrate what you claim the historical contest of
>> "bear arms" means, because I can already produce a historical
>> context using bearing arms for hunting.
>
> In a eighteenth century document? For God's sake, get a grip!
Yes, in an 18th Century document.
Thanks but I seem to already have a firm grip on the facts.
>>>> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
>>>> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long
>>>> ago.
>>
>>> Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
>>
>> And yet you claim to know history so well that you can tell SCOTUS
>> they don't understand the historical context. Interesting.
>
> And why not? I'm probably as arrogant as you appear to be....
>
> I have misjudged you. You are like the rest.
If by the rest you mean people who won't blindly accept your revisionism of
history, language and the law. Then I suppose I am.
I take it then you will now be running away rather than supporting your
rather extreme claims?
Oh, and what you mistake for arrogance is confidence because I can back up
my claims about the 2nd. Something you've yet to show you can or will do.
Dr. Barry Worthington
I read the Federalist Papers when I was a student in the 1960s...and
parts of the Commentaries. Don't assume things about people...you will
come a cropper....
>
> >> However, I am perfectly willing to examine your evidence that SCOTUS
> >> had no historical sense when they rendered their ruling.
>
> > As I said, I'm not interested in modern legal interpretations. I'm a
> > historian, not a lawyer.
>
> And yet, you seem utterly unable to support your claims with anything more
> than empty assertions.
>
> Seems you are as good a historian as you were as an English teacher.
I also read Western on the eighteenth century militia....
> >>>> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis of
> >>>> the 2nd Amendment and by which means under the standard rules for
> >>>> English Grammar, you believe the right is conditionally linked to
> >>>> the militia.
>
> >>>> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a
> >>>> "nominative absolute" is.
>
> >>> Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> >>> grammatical construction.
>
> >> I feel sorry for your students. Wonder how many of them had to take
> >> remedial English because they had you for a teacher?
>
> > I thought that, unlike the rest of the posters, you were civil. Why do
> > you have to be as mean minded as them?
>
> Because, you have shown no indication you understand the language set
> forth. You claim superior knowledge, and yet ignore the very fundimental
> structure of our language.
As you do, since you didn't express yourself properly....
>
> So why shouldn't I feel sorry for students of a teach who seems to lack any
> real knowledge of the subject he claims to have teached?
And how, on God's earth, would you know that? You are just trying to
excuse your boorish behaviour.
>
> Further my being civil has gained me nothing. All you offer are your
> unsupported assertions that fly in the face of over 200 years of
> understanding.
You were not civil in the second posting.
>
> >>> You should realise that grammar is not the
> >>> precise thing that people think it is....especially in the
> >>> eighteenth century. I have expressed the standard historical
> >>> interpretation of this 'right'....
>
> >> No, you have expressed your particular unsupported assertion.
>
> >> I will simply acknowledge your claim that you feel the Founding
> >> Fathers were ignorant of the English language.
>
> > Eighteenth century usage of English? You actually think that there is
> > a standard English?
>
> Pretty much, yep.
Then you are a fool.....
>Certainly the language has evolved since the 18th Century,
> but I see no evidence it has done so to the extent you are claiming. Further
> I see nothing from you to support such a claim. All I am getting from you
> are empty unsupported assertions and questions. Maybe you should try some
> verifiable facts and evidence?
With you?
>
> >>> But thankyou for a measured and civil response......
>
> >> And it certainly looks like I wasted my time, since I still didn't
> >> get any support for your claim from you.
>
> >> Just more empty assertions.
>
> > What is this? Argument by oujah board? You should express yourself
> > clearer.
>
> Ok. The let me be clearer. Back up your claims with facts.
>
> > Now, if you are not prepared to be civil, I will ignore you....
>
> I am civil until someone makes claims they can't or won't back up. So if I
> am becoming uncivil, you need only look in the mirror to see the reason.
I am coming to the conclusion that you may be a troll....
>
> Now, are you going to support your claims and assertions with some
> verifiable facts and evidence or shall I expect you to run away because I'm
> uncivil with someone who posts crap he can't back up?
When you do the same, perhaps. Or when you can demonstrate that you
are not an ill-mannered troll....
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
I sometimes lurk in this ng because you can't beat a genuine American
idiot. You will make a good addition to my collection......
Scout
> On 16 Nov, 15:14, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
>> messagenews:0597af71-1747-4d61...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:> "Dr.
>> Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
>>> messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>>
>>> #
>>> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service
>>> in # the militia.
>>> #
>>> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>>> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
>>> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension
>>> skills
>>
>> #
>> # Another ill-mannered oaf!
>> #
>>
>> What is better, an informed but "ill-mannered oaf" or a well-mannered
>> ignoramus and idiot ?
>> I'll take the first every time
>
> Will you? What makes you think that you are 'informed'?
What makes you think he is not?
Oh, and when you say he isn't informed, I expect some facts to back up the
claim.
>>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
>>> associated with a militia
>>
>> #
>> # Not in this historical context.... The phrase 'bear arms' should
>> give # you a clue.
>>
>> LOL
>> More ignorance from an alleged English teacher
>
> I taught English (amongst other things) in a school, long before I
> moved into Higher Education.
And yet, you find yourself utterly unable to understand the meaning of the
2nd, or to support your reading of the 2nd to anyone else.
IMO, that doesn't say much for the quality of your linguistic teachings.
>> The verb "to bear" is NOT used exclusively as a military term
>> For Example "to bear children", puts the lie to that
>
> But that is irrelevant to this context, is't it. We are talking about
> a phrase that can only mean one thing.
>
>> It is also UNTRUE that "to bear arms" is or was ONLY used in a
>> military
>> context
>
> How do you know?
Maybe because he has actually studied the history, and is aware of uses with
a non-military context?
Of course, this would have been a good time for you to present your evidence
that this term was only used in a military context, but your evidence seems
to be missing.
> Are you familiar with eighteenth century English, and
> the documents of the time?
I suspect he is.
> With the militia debates on both sides of
> the Atlantic?
Probably more so than you.
>
>> Since your claim is false, so is your argument
>
> On your sayso, you silly man?
Why not? It's the entire basis of YOUR position.
>>> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
>>> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long
>>> ago.
>>
>> #
>> # Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
>> #
>>
>> Funny,
>> You just claimed you were an English teacher a few posts ago
>
> I have a history degree and have undertaken historical research
> (including part of my Doctorate).
You claim a lot of stuff, but support for those claims is non-existant.
Scout
Because you say so???
> Now bugger offf........
Nope, I think I will stick around and continue to ask you to back up your
claims. It's most amusing when you can't.
Scout
And yet, I see no evidence that you have ever read them. Indeed, all I've
seen from you is a lot of empty claims unsupported by any evidence.
>>>> However, I am perfectly willing to examine your evidence that
>>>> SCOTUS had no historical sense when they rendered their ruling.
>>
>>> As I said, I'm not interested in modern legal interpretations. I'm a
>>> historian, not a lawyer.
>>
>> And yet, you seem utterly unable to support your claims with
>> anything more than empty assertions.
>>
>> Seems you are as good a historian as you were as an English teacher.
>
> I also read Western on the eighteenth century militia....
And still don't understand it.
>>>>>> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis
>>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment and by which means under the standard rules
>>>>>> for English Grammar, you believe the right is conditionally
>>>>>> linked to the militia.
>>
>>>>>> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a
>>>>>> "nominative absolute" is.
>>
>>>>> Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
>>>>> grammatical construction.
>>
>>>> I feel sorry for your students. Wonder how many of them had to take
>>>> remedial English because they had you for a teacher?
>>
>>> I thought that, unlike the rest of the posters, you were civil. Why
>>> do you have to be as mean minded as them?
>>
>> Because, you have shown no indication you understand the language set
>> forth. You claim superior knowledge, and yet ignore the very
>> fundimental structure of our language.
>
> As you do, since you didn't express yourself properly....
Should I consider that insulting?
Should I question your civility because of it?
>> So why shouldn't I feel sorry for students of a teach who seems to
>> lack any real knowledge of the subject he claims to have teached?
>
> And how, on God's earth, would you know that?
Your comments as posted here.
>You are just trying to
> excuse your boorish behaviour.
Nope, simply making an observation about the students of a person so
ignorant of the English language to assume a condition exists within a
sentence that doesn't contain any condition.
>> Further my being civil has gained me nothing. All you offer are your
>> unsupported assertions that fly in the face of over 200 years of
>> understanding.
>
> You were not civil in the second posting.
And if you continue to refuse to back up your claims, I will become
considerably less civil. One might even say I shall start to ridicule you.
>>>>> You should realise that grammar is not the
>>>>> precise thing that people think it is....especially in the
>>>>> eighteenth century. I have expressed the standard historical
>>>>> interpretation of this 'right'....
>>
>>>> No, you have expressed your particular unsupported assertion.
>>
>>>> I will simply acknowledge your claim that you feel the Founding
>>>> Fathers were ignorant of the English language.
>>
>>> Eighteenth century usage of English? You actually think that there
>>> is a standard English?
>>
>> Pretty much, yep.
>
> Then you are a fool.....
And yet, you present nothing to contest that.
>> Certainly the language has evolved since the 18th Century,
>> but I see no evidence it has done so to the extent you are claiming.
>> Further I see nothing from you to support such a claim. All I am
>> getting from you are empty unsupported assertions and questions.
>> Maybe you should try some verifiable facts and evidence?
>
> With you?
I suppose if you wish to actually hold a discussion. Otherwise, there will
be little point in my being civil with someone who won't back up their
assertions.
>>>>> But thankyou for a measured and civil response......
>>
>>>> And it certainly looks like I wasted my time, since I still didn't
>>>> get any support for your claim from you.
>>
>>>> Just more empty assertions.
>>
>>> What is this? Argument by oujah board? You should express yourself
>>> clearer.
>>
>> Ok. The let me be clearer. Back up your claims with facts.
>>
>>> Now, if you are not prepared to be civil, I will ignore you....
>>
>> I am civil until someone makes claims they can't or won't back up.
>> So if I am becoming uncivil, you need only look in the mirror to see
>> the reason.
>
> I am coming to the conclusion that you may be a troll....
Then maybe you should simply start presenting your evidence.
>> Now, are you going to support your claims and assertions with some
>> verifiable facts and evidence or shall I expect you to run away
>> because I'm uncivil with someone who posts crap he can't back up?
>
> When you do the same, perhaps. Or when you can demonstrate that you
> are not an ill-mannered troll....
Ok. I asked you to support your claims first, but I'm willing to start off
since you seem reluctant to do so.
To show that there is no condition imposed upon the main clause of the 2nd
Amendment by the introductory clause, I refer you to the construction of the
"nominative absolute".
As can be noted in the following link (which BTW uses follows an identical
basic structure with the 2nd) we find "The phrase has no grammatical
connection with the rest of the sentence."
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm
Without a grammatical connection, no condition can be imposed. Thus the
right to bear arms is not restricted to the militia.
Your turn.
Scout
> On 16 Nov, 17:19, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>> On 16 Nov, 15:11, Bama Brian <claypoolbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> BZZZT! Wrong! And another example of the fine ehjumacation
>>>> provided by the fedgov's public indoctrination skools checks in...
>>> Why do you assume that I'm an American?
>>
>> You can't be an American.
>> Yer not smart enough to be one, Subject!
>
> I sometimes lurk in this ng because you can't beat a genuine American
> idiot. You will make a good addition to my collection......
If you lurker here, then you should already be well aware that I am not a
troll.
So either you are lying about being a lurker, or you are lying about your
concern that I am a troll.
Either way, it would appear you are being dishonest.
Scout
And your proof of that, is where?
>> You're simply wrong.
>
> No, you are...
Still looking for your proof.
>> Next, you'll tell us that the term "well-regulated" refers to
>> government intrusion or oversight...
>
> In the eighteenth century America, it meant the Colonial Governer and
> then the State Governer.
Really? So the Colonial Governer and then the State Governer were there to
make sure clocks kept time?
>>
>> Most leftists get that wrong, too.
>
> Really? You mean they don't subscribe to cock-eyed notions of right-
> wing nutters forming their own militias?
Getting rather insulting there, you might even be consider uncivil.
>>>> The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
>>
>>> You must have been a disappointment to your English teacher...
>>
>> Quite the contrary -- they would've appreciated how I just "schooled"
>> you.
>>
>> That's an American slang for having "your porridge peppered"...
>>
>> Quite.
>
> No...I'm the academic with some knowledge of the period.........
Not demonstratably.
>>>> Do your homework.
>>
>>> Did you?
>>
>> Absolutely -- do you really think that 220 years of American gun
>> ownership, in theory and in practice, has been illegitimate because a
>> misguided Brit says so?
>
> Well, your version is....
Known as "The standard model". It's know as that for a reason.
Bert Hyman
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> So either you are lying about being a lurker, or you are lying about
> your concern that I am a troll.
You've neglected to consider the possibility that the good doctor is
himself the troll.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> > On 16 Nov, 16:38, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> >>> On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
> >>>> messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> >>>> #
> >>>> # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service
> >>>> in # the militia.
> >>>> #
> >>>> # Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >>>> One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
> >>>> It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension
> >>>> skills
>
> >>> Another ill-mannered oaf!
>
> >> You call him ill-mannered however his observation is a calm polite
> >> evaluation of the character you have displayed.
>
> > His observation was insulting.
>
> If his observation is true, then it doesn't matter whether you consider it
> insulting.
His observation was insulting, pure and simple. If you can't see that,
you shouldn't be allowed out on your own.
>
> >And now I am required to question your
> > judgement...
>
> Sorry, but the truth can be insulting, but the truth shouldn't be ignored
> simply because it offends you.
What truth? You wouldn't know truth if it bit you! (See, I can be as
puerile as you are. Now what does that get us?)
> And so far you have yet to demonstrate any reasonable level of reading or
> comprehension skills that can be supported by your presentation of
> verifiable facts and evidence.
And you provide verifiable facts and evidence, I suppose?
>
> >> The language doesn't say what you claim, and for someone who claims
> >> to be an English teacher you should know this.
>
> > On your say so? Oh dear!
>
> Why not? Seems to be good enough for your claims.
>
> Besides I've already given you a clue on what the 2nd doesn't establish the
> condition you claim exists. So I've already provided you with evidence to
> back up what I say.
What evidence? A reference to a disputed area in grammar, that no-one
can rule on? Oh dear!
>
> Where is your counter evidence?
Of what?
>
> >>>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
> >>>> associated
> >>>> with a militia
>
> >>> Not in this historical context....
>
> >> This please present this "historical context"
>
> > The historical context of your Bill of Rights!
>
> BZZzzzzzzzttttttttt
>
> Circular logic fallacy.
I'm sure that this means something, but you asked a question, and I
answered it.
>
> >>> The phrase 'bear arms' should give
> >>> you a clue.
>
> >> Feel free to demonstrate what you claim the historical contest of
> >> "bear arms" means, because I can already produce a historical
> >> context using bearing arms for hunting.
>
> > In a eighteenth century document? For God's sake, get a grip!
>
> Yes, in an 18th Century document.
Then cite it.
>
> Thanks but I seem to already have a firm grip on the facts.
>
> >>>> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> >>>> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long
> >>>> ago.
>
> >>> Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
>
> >> And yet you claim to know history so well that you can tell SCOTUS
> >> they don't understand the historical context. Interesting.
>
> > And why not? I'm probably as arrogant as you appear to be....
>
> > I have misjudged you. You are like the rest.
>
> If by the rest you mean people who won't blindly accept your revisionism of
> history, language and the law. Then I suppose I am.
No. An ungracious arrogant monomaniac.....like a lot of people on
these n.g.'s
>
> I take it then you will now be running away rather than supporting your
> rather extreme claims?
What extreme claims? You should study the history of your own
country....
>
> Oh, and what you mistake for arrogance is confidence because I can back up
> my claims about the 2nd. Something you've yet to show you can or will do.
No, you just seem to be the usual merkin....
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
The content of what he writes....
>
> Oh, and when you say he isn't informed, I expect some facts to back up the
> claim.
Why don't you read his posting?
>
> >>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
> >>> associated with a militia
>
> >> #
> >> # Not in this historical context.... The phrase 'bear arms' should
> >> give # you a clue.
>
> >> LOL
> >> More ignorance from an alleged English teacher
>
> > I taught English (amongst other things) in a school, long before I
> > moved into Higher Education.
>
> And yet, you find yourself utterly unable to understand the meaning of the
> 2nd, or to support your reading of the 2nd to anyone else.
>
> IMO, that doesn't say much for the quality of your linguistic teachings.
You refer to a disputed area of grammar, and you think that you have a
famous victory?
>
> >> The verb "to bear" is NOT used exclusively as a military term
> >> For Example "to bear children", puts the lie to that
>
> > But that is irrelevant to this context, is't it. We are talking about
> > a phrase that can only mean one thing.
>
> >> It is also UNTRUE that "to bear arms" is or was ONLY used in a
> >> military
> >> context
>
> > How do you know?
>
> Maybe because he has actually studied the history, and is aware of uses with
> a non-military context?
Oh sure......
>
> Of course, this would have been a good time for you to present your evidence
> that this term was only used in a military context, but your evidence seems
> to be missing.
Well, just for you...we can start with the Oxford English Dictionary
definition of the term and its provenance.
>
> > Are you familiar with eighteenth century English, and
> > the documents of the time?
>
> I suspect he is.
Sure.....
>
> > With the militia debates on both sides of
> > the Atlantic?
>
> Probably more so than you.
Arrogant fool!
>
>
>
> >> Since your claim is false, so is your argument
>
> > On your sayso, you silly man?
>
> Why not? It's the entire basis of YOUR position.
Well, you see, when people are rational and civil, I might be more
forthcoming....
>
> >>> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> >>> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long
> >>> ago.
>
> >> #
> >> # Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
> >> #
>
> >> Funny,
> >> You just claimed you were an English teacher a few posts ago
>
> > I have a history degree and have undertaken historical research
> > (including part of my Doctorate).
>
> You claim a lot of stuff, but support for those claims is non-existant.
Well, you can pull your finger out and look up my profile.........I'm
totally transparent....
Were you always like this? Or is it the company you keep?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Well, I've given you one cite. It's all you deserve at the moment.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> >>>> Do your homework.
>
> >>> Did you?
>
> >> He did, you didn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
There, there!!!!!!! Shall I kiss it better?
>
> >>>> However, I am perfectly willing to examine your evidence that
> >>>> SCOTUS had no historical sense when they rendered their ruling.
>
> >>> As I said, I'm not interested in modern legal interpretations. I'm a
> >>> historian, not a lawyer.
>
> >> And yet, you seem utterly unable to support your claims with
> >> anything more than empty assertions.
>
> >> Seems you are as good a historian as you were as an English teacher.
>
> > I also read Western on the eighteenth century militia....
>
> And still don't understand it.
Why, have you read this book?
> >>>>>> However, I am prefectly willing to see your linguistic analysis
> >>>>>> of the 2nd Amendment and by which means under the standard rules
> >>>>>> for English Grammar, you believe the right is conditionally
> >>>>>> linked to the militia.
>
> >>>>>> Free Hint: Before you start you may want to look up what a
> >>>>>> "nominative absolute" is.
>
> >>>>> Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> >>>>> grammatical construction.
>
> >>>> I feel sorry for your students. Wonder how many of them had to take
> >>>> remedial English because they had you for a teacher?
>
> >>> I thought that, unlike the rest of the posters, you were civil. Why
> >>> do you have to be as mean minded as them?
>
> >> Because, you have shown no indication you understand the language set
> >> forth. You claim superior knowledge, and yet ignore the very
> >> fundimental structure of our language.
>
> > As you do, since you didn't express yourself properly....
>
> Should I consider that insulting?
Why?
>
> Should I question your civility because of it?
Please yourself.....
>
> >> So why shouldn't I feel sorry for students of a teach who seems to
> >> lack any real knowledge of the subject he claims to have teached?
>
> > And how, on God's earth, would you know that?
>
> Your comments as posted here.
Hmmm.....
>
> >You are just trying to
> > excuse your boorish behaviour.
>
> Nope, simply making an observation about the students of a person so
> ignorant of the English language to assume a condition exists within a
> sentence that doesn't contain any condition.
Your definition of a nominative absolute is not held by most
garmmarians. They would say that it modifies the main phrase.
>
> >> Further my being civil has gained me nothing. All you offer are your
> >> unsupported assertions that fly in the face of over 200 years of
> >> understanding.
>
> > You were not civil in the second posting.
>
> And if you continue to refuse to back up your claims, I will become
> considerably less civil. One might even say I shall start to ridicule you.
I doubt that. You mainly make a fool of yourself.
> >>>>> You should realise that grammar is not the
> >>>>> precise thing that people think it is....especially in the
> >>>>> eighteenth century. I have expressed the standard historical
> >>>>> interpretation of this 'right'....
>
> >>>> No, you have expressed your particular unsupported assertion.
>
> >>>> I will simply acknowledge your claim that you feel the Founding
> >>>> Fathers were ignorant of the English language.
>
> >>> Eighteenth century usage of English? You actually think that there
> >>> is a standard English?
>
> >> Pretty much, yep.
>
> > Then you are a fool.....
>
> And yet, you present nothing to contest that.
Look it up in somewhere like wikipedia. Your definition, or the one
that you cite, is crap.
>
> >> Certainly the language has evolved since the 18th Century,
> >> but I see no evidence it has done so to the extent you are claiming.
> >> Further I see nothing from you to support such a claim. All I am
> >> getting from you are empty unsupported assertions and questions.
> >> Maybe you should try some verifiable facts and evidence?
>
> > With you?
>
> I suppose if you wish to actually hold a discussion. Otherwise, there will
> be little point in my being civil with someone who won't back up their
> assertions.
You have decided to be civil? I've given you a reference in another
posting....
Yes, most English teachers wouldn't give this definition
houseroom....it clearly modifies the substantive clause....
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Without a grammatical connection, no condition can be imposed. Thus the
> right to bear arms is not restricted to the militia.
>
> Your turn.- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> > On 16 Nov, 17:19, Berry Oakley <AllmanBroth...@bass.gov> wrote:
> >> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> >>> On 16 Nov, 15:11, Bama Brian <claypoolbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> BZZZT! Wrong! And another example of the fine ehjumacation
> >>>> provided by the fedgov's public indoctrination skools checks in...
> >>> Why do you assume that I'm an American?
>
> >> You can't be an American.
> >> Yer not smart enough to be one, Subject!
>
> > I sometimes lurk in this ng because you can't beat a genuine American
> > idiot. You will make a good addition to my collection......
>
> If you lurker here, then you should already be well aware that I am not a
> troll.
>
> So either you are lying about being a lurker, or you are lying about your
> concern that I am a troll.
>
> Either way, it would appear you are being dishonest.
Please have your breakdown somewhere else.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> Innews:xWgMm.35424$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad"Scout"
>
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> > So either you are lying about being a lurker, or you are lying about
> > your concern that I am a troll.
>
> You've neglected to consider the possibility that the good doctor is
> himself the troll.
Moi? A troll? Heaven forfend!
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you now answering for everyone?
Dr. Barry Worthington
SaPeIsMa
On 16 Nov, 15:14, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
> messagenews:0597af71-1747-4d61...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Nov, 22:48, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:> "Dr. Barry
> Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in
> > messagenews:550ed024-805b-41c7...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On 12 Nov, 19:48, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The right to own cars is guaranteed by the US Constitution?
>
> > #
> > # Neither is the right to be armed. That is contingent upon service in
> > # the militia.
> > #
> > # Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> > One has to wonder where you got your "Dr." title
> > It sure wasn't from demonstrating any reading and comprehension skills
>
> #
> # Another ill-mannered oaf!
> #
>
> What is better, an informed but "ill-mannered oaf" or a well-mannered
> ignoramus and idiot ?
> I'll take the first every time
# Will you? What makes you think that you are 'informed'?
#
Compared to you, even a pet rock is informed.
And you're completely ignorant about the 2nd Amendment, it's history and
it's intent
> > The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
> > associated
> > with a militia
>
> #
> # Not in this historical context.... The phrase 'bear arms' should give
> # you a clue.
>
> LOL
> More ignorance from an alleged English teacher
#
# I taught English (amongst other things) in a school, long before I
# moved into Higher Education.
Too bad you didn't learn anything before, during and after all those alleged
steps
> The verb "to bear" is NOT used exclusively as a military term
> For Example "to bear children", puts the lie to that
#
# But that is irrelevant to this context, is't it. We are talking about
# a phrase that can only mean one thing.
Says YOU
But we have already clearly demonstrated that you're no expert.
As a matter of fact, you're neither an expert of the history pertinent to
the 2nd Amendmend
And now you're demonstrating (again) that you're not much of an expert of
the Queen's English
So let's see how the Merriam-Webster dictionary demonstrates you're
ignorance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear%5B2%5D
- bear arms
1 : to carry or possess arms
2 : to serve as a soldier
Thank you for playing
> It is also UNTRUE that "to bear arms" is or was ONLY used in a military
> context
#
# How do you know? Are you familiar with eighteenth century English, and
# the documents of the time? With the militia debates on both sides of
# the Atlantic?
1) Unlike you, I have read many of the other writings of the framers of
the US Constitution
2) I don't really have a need to read what anyone other than the Framers
had to say about the meaning of the term before or since, since ONLY what
the Framers meant when the Framers used the term is of any applicable
importance
Your problem is that you have NOT read what the Framers had to say before,
during and after the wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
So you're just spouting ignorant cant. Something you do with great panache.
Too bad that panache is just show and not substance.
>
> > That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> > A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
>
> #
> # Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
> #
>
> Funny,
> You just claimed you were an English teacher a few posts ago
I have a history degree and have undertaken historical research
(including part of my Doctorate).
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
> + news:8f4e6cab-01dc-4a5d-99f9-+
> 409f5ce62...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> +
> + Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> + grammatical construction.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Are you also claiming that historians arguing the law should be ignorant
> of
> the law ?
#
# Lawyers are sometimes guily of interpreting legislation without
# considering the historical context.
And apparently you're a historian guilty of the same mistake
>
> So far you've shoveled manure and ignorant cant, and have been unable to
> support your claims
#
# Casting real pearls before genuine swine? In your case, I think
# not....
#
# Toodle pip!
I'll cosnider that an admission that what you call "pearls" are more aking
to horse apples.
SaPeIsMa
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:21c7cd6d-2484-43c4...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
# It exists.
#
# Now bugger offf........
#
# Dr. Barry Worthington
The good doctor seems to imagine that the phrases
"now bugger off" and "run along" are supposed proof the support his
unsupported claims
Methinks we're dealing with a particularly stupid troll
SaPeIsMa
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:86f897ac-524d-45aa...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Nov, 16:49, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:00 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Not so -- the Bill of Rights describe INDIVIDUAL rights.
>
> > > Always have.
>
> > > The 2nd is no different.
>
> > Actually, it is.....if you bother to read it properly....
>
> I did -- the operative clause (the second) is a command, and nothing
> is the first clause modifies or restricts this command.
# Rubbish!
#
Only in the minds of ignorati such as you
Too bad you can't do better than this
http://www.largo.org/literary.html
or this
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
or this
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
Instead, all you can present is
"Rubbish"
Well at least that's ONE thing you got right so far
You just spout rubbish
>
> You're simply wrong.
#
# No, you are...
And yet, you are unable to present ANYTHING to support your claim
Why is that ?
Stupid troll is a good explanation
>
> Next, you'll tell us that the term "well-regulated" refers to
> government intrusion or oversight...
#
# In the eighteenth century America, it meant the Colonial Governer and
# then the State Governer.
LOL
You really are way out, and way past left field, dummy
Since when is "well-regulated" a synonym for "Colonial Governer" (sic) or
"State Governer" (sic) ?
You're not even smart enough to use a dictionary, apparently.
Try here, dummy
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
>
> Most leftists get that wrong, too.
#
# Really? You mean they don't subscribe to cock-eyed notions of right-
# wing nutters forming their own militias?
#
According to US Code, they don't have to do that to be part of the militia
To learn about that, you ignoramus, start here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>
>
> > > The second clause is NOT conditional upon the first.
>
> > You must have been a disappointment to your English teacher...
>
> Quite the contrary -- they would've appreciated how I just "schooled"
> you.
>
> That's an American slang for having "your porridge peppered"...
>
> Quite.
#
# No...I'm the academic with some knowledge of the period.........
#
So far, you're just an ignoramus unable to support his claims with ANY
evidence.
I didn't realize that "academic" meant "ignorant blowhard
>
>
>
> > > Do your homework.
>
> > Did you?
>
> Absolutely -- do you really think that 220 years of American gun
> ownership, in theory and in practice, has been illegitimate because a
> misguided Brit says so?
#
# Well, your version is....
#
Riiiight
Maybe in the wettest of your wet dreasm
But considering how you've been shooting blanks here, that's probably just a
dry hole.
>
> Especially in light of the fact that all of the contemporary writings
> of the founders confirm their insistence that the right to bear arms
> was/is an individual one?
#
# Oh? And where do they argue that?
#
What we have is their statements and commentaries
http://www.largo.org/meaning2.html
>
> You forget, my good man, that the amendment was crafted as a direct
> response to misguided Brits.
#
# Actually, it wasn't. The war was long over. Amongst other things it
# was a defence against Federal pretensions.
Not just
Concord Mass. was still VERY FRESH on their minds
You have heard of the Battle of Concord and the REASON why it occurred.
Scout
Sure, because he's already expressed his position and it follows the
Standard Model for the 2nd Amendment.
Though meanwhile I note you STILL haven't produced a single fact or cite to
support your assertions.
Scout
> In news:xWgMm.35424$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> So either you are lying about being a lurker, or you are lying about
>> your concern that I am a troll.
>
> You've neglected to consider the possibility that the good doctor is
> himself the troll.
He's certainly showing the signs of being one.
Scout
Oh, I can see how the truth might be insulting to you, but that doesn't
alter what it is. Nor should it be ignored simply because you find the truth
offensive.
>>> And now I am required to question your
>>> judgement...
>>
>> Sorry, but the truth can be insulting, but the truth shouldn't be
>> ignored simply because it offends you.
>
> What truth?
Not much of a memory there either?
> You wouldn't know truth if it bit you! (See, I can be as
> puerile as you are. Now what does that get us?)
Actually, I usually can, and so far I've seen more from him than you have
offered.
>> And so far you have yet to demonstrate any reasonable level of
>> reading or comprehension skills that can be supported by your
>> presentation of verifiable facts and evidence.
>
> And you provide verifiable facts and evidence, I suppose?
I certainly can. I've already done so in order to try and get the ball
rolling. However, I somehow suspect that you will fail to produce any facts
or cites of your own in response.
>>>> The language doesn't say what you claim, and for someone who claims
>>>> to be an English teacher you should know this.
>>
>>> On your say so? Oh dear!
>>
>> Why not? Seems to be good enough for your claims.
>>
>> Besides I've already given you a clue on what the 2nd doesn't
>> establish the condition you claim exists. So I've already provided
>> you with evidence to back up what I say.
>
> What evidence? A reference to a disputed area in grammar, that no-one
> can rule on? Oh dear!
Really? A "nominative absolute" is a "disputed area in grammar"???
I await your cite to support that assertion, but I suspect I will wait in
vain.
>> Where is your counter evidence?
>
> Of what?
Yep, that memory of yours really sucks.
And you are looking more and more like another troll.
>>>>>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
>>>>>> associated
>>>>>> with a militia
>>
>>>>> Not in this historical context....
>>
>>>> This please present this "historical context"
>>
>>> The historical context of your Bill of Rights!
>>
>> BZZzzzzzzzttttttttt
>>
>> Circular logic fallacy.
>
> I'm sure that this means something, but you asked a question, and I
> answered it.
Yep, with a fallacy. Which means you don't have a valid response.
For someone that claims to know as much as you claim, you would think you
would know that answering with a fallacy means your answer is unacceptable.
>>>>> The phrase 'bear arms' should give
>>>>> you a clue.
>>
>>>> Feel free to demonstrate what you claim the historical contest of
>>>> "bear arms" means, because I can already produce a historical
>>>> context using bearing arms for hunting.
>>
>>> In a eighteenth century document? For God's sake, get a grip!
>>
>> Yes, in an 18th Century document.
>
> Then cite it.
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and
their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;
and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless
for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and
as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought
not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict
subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of
Pennsylvania to their Constituents, December 12th 1787.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm
Point made, supported and proven.
Now it's your turn to show that "bear arms" means ONLY in a military
context.
>> Thanks but I seem to already have a firm grip on the facts.
>>
>>>>>> That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
>>>>>> A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long
>>>>>> ago.
>>
>>>>> Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
>>
>>>> And yet you claim to know history so well that you can tell SCOTUS
>>>> they don't understand the historical context. Interesting.
>>
>>> And why not? I'm probably as arrogant as you appear to be....
>>
>>> I have misjudged you. You are like the rest.
>>
>> If by the rest you mean people who won't blindly accept your
>> revisionism of history, language and the law. Then I suppose I am.
>
> No. An ungracious arrogant monomaniac.....like a lot of people on
> these n.g.'s
IOW, people who won't blindely accept your revisionism of history, language
and the law.
>> I take it then you will now be running away rather than supporting
>> your rather extreme claims?
>
> What extreme claims? You should study the history of your own
> country....
And yet, I seem to be the only one able to back up my claims with actual
facts and cites to the same.
You have.......empty assertions, bravo, and bluster.
>> Oh, and what you mistake for arrogance is confidence because I can
>> back up my claims about the 2nd. Something you've yet to show you
>> can or will do.
>
> No, you just seem to be the usual merkin....
Thanks, because the usual American is considerably more intelligent and
educated than you have shown yourself to be.
Scout
Ok, I accept that you can't back up your bullshit.
So now that we've established that all you produce is unsupportable crap, is
there any reason why I should continue to attempt to hold a civil discussion
with you?
Scout
Sorry, but your unsupported assertions are NOT a cite.
Scout
Feel free to present YOUR evidence of that. Somehow, I doubt I will ever see
you show it establishes the condition you assert exists when it is used.
<snip the rest of your unsupported assertions>
Dr. Barry Worthington
Well, I was taught good manners......
>
> >>> And now I am required to question your
> >>> judgement...
>
> >> Sorry, but the truth can be insulting, but the truth shouldn't be
> >> ignored simply because it offends you.
>
> > What truth?
>
> Not much of a memory there either?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > You wouldn't know truth if it bit you! (See, I can be as
> > puerile as you are. Now what does that get us?)
>
> Actually, I usually can, and so far I've seen more from him than you have
> offered.
Is that so?
>
> >> And so far you have yet to demonstrate any reasonable level of
> >> reading or comprehension skills that can be supported by your
> >> presentation of verifiable facts and evidence.
>
> > And you provide verifiable facts and evidence, I suppose?
>
> I certainly can. I've already done so in order to try and get the ball
> rolling. However, I somehow suspect that you will fail to produce any facts
> or cites of your own in response.
I already have. But you make so many postings, I'm not sure that you
read things properly.
>
> >>>> The language doesn't say what you claim, and for someone who claims
> >>>> to be an English teacher you should know this.
>
> >>> On your say so? Oh dear!
>
> >> Why not? Seems to be good enough for your claims.
>
> >> Besides I've already given you a clue on what the 2nd doesn't
> >> establish the condition you claim exists. So I've already provided
> >> you with evidence to back up what I say.
>
> > What evidence? A reference to a disputed area in grammar, that no-one
> > can rule on? Oh dear!
>
> Really? A "nominative absolute" is a "disputed area in grammar"???
Yes, it is.
>
> I await your cite to support that assertion, but I suspect I will wait in
> vain.
I asked you to look it up. Try Wikipedia for a start....
>
> >> Where is your counter evidence?
>
> > Of what?
>
> Yep, that memory of yours really sucks.
>
> And you are looking more and more like another troll.
Really? Do trolls have a profile? A web page?
> >>>>>> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is INDEPEDANT of ANY activities
> >>>>>> associated
> >>>>>> with a militia
>
> >>>>> Not in this historical context....
>
> >>>> This please present this "historical context"
>
> >>> The historical context of your Bill of Rights!
>
> >> BZZzzzzzzzttttttttt
>
> >> Circular logic fallacy.
>
> > I'm sure that this means something, but you asked a question, and I
> > answered it.
>
> Yep, with a fallacy. Which means you don't have a valid response.
>
> For someone that claims to know as much as you claim, you would think you
> would know that answering with a fallacy means your answer is unacceptable.
I have no idea what this means. Neither, I suspect, do you....
>
> >>>>> The phrase 'bear arms' should give
> >>>>> you a clue.
>
> >>>> Feel free to demonstrate what you claim the historical contest of
> >>>> "bear arms" means, because I can already produce a historical
> >>>> context using bearing arms for hunting.
>
> >>> In a eighteenth century document? For God's sake, get a grip!
>
> >> Yes, in an 18th Century document.
>
> > Then cite it.
>
> "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and
> their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game;
> and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless
> for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and
> as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought
> not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict
> subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
Most of this quotation deals with 'bearing arms' in a military
fashion. I am not denying that some people may use the phrase for
other purposes, but the overwhelming majority use the phrase in a
miltary context. Searches have been made in the US archives, and that
is the case....the phrase is cited in documents dealing with the
militia or military matters.
I have already cited the Oxford English Dictionary definition, and its
medieval provenance.
You forgot this:-
"Secondly, the rights of conscience may be violated, as there is no
exemption of those persons who are conscientiously scrupulous of
bearing arms. These compose a respectable proportion of the community
in the state. This is the more remarkable, because even when the
distresses of the late war, and the evident disaffection of many
citizens of that description, inflamed our passions, and when every
person, who was obliged to risque his own life, must have been
exasperated against such as on any account kept back from the common
danger, yet even then, when outrage and violence might have been
expected, the rights of conscience were held sacred."
A large part of this document deals with the issue of the militia and
a standing army, from which this quote comes.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> educated than you have shown yourself to be.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
It was civil? Now there's a thing......
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:06ad213f-f394-4c9d...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Try a decent dictionary....like the Oxford English Dictionary.....
>
> > It is also UNTRUE that "to bear arms" is or was ONLY used in a military
> > context
>
> #
> # How do you know? Are you familiar with eighteenth century English, and
> # the documents of the time? With the militia debates on both sides of
> # the Atlantic?
>
> 1) Unlike you, I have read many of the other writings of the framers of
> the US Constitution
And how do you know I haven't?
> 2) I don't really have a need to read what anyone other than the Framers
> had to say about the meaning of the term before or since, since ONLY what
> the Framers meant when the Framers used the term is of any applicable
> importance
And how do you know what they really meant if you don't study the
context?
>
> Your problem is that you have NOT read what the Framers had to say before,
> during and after the wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
> So you're just spouting ignorant cant. Something you do with great panache.
> Too bad that panache is just show and not substance.
And how do you know that? After all, you don't know me from Adam. You
just open your mouth and stick your foot in it...
>
>
>
> > > That was recently confirmed in the Heller decision
> > > A point that was brought to your ignorant attention not too long ago.
>
> > #
> > # Really? I'm a historian, not a lawyer.......please run along....
> > #
>
> > Funny,
> > You just claimed you were an English teacher a few posts ago
>
> I have a history degree and have undertaken historical research
> (including part of my Doctorate).
>
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > + "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > + news:8f4e6cab-01dc-4a5d-99f9-+
> > 409f5ce62...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > +
> > + Look, I used to teach English in the days when we still analysed
> > + grammatical construction.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> > Are you also claiming that historians arguing the law should be ignorant
> > of
> > the law ?
>
> #
> # Lawyers are sometimes guily of interpreting legislation without
> # considering the historical context.
>
> And apparently you're a historian guilty of the same mistake
But how would you know?
>
>
>
> > So far you've shoveled manure and ignorant cant, and have been unable to
> > support your claims
>
> #
> # Casting real pearls before genuine swine? In your case, I think
> # not....
> #
> # Toodle pip!
>
> I'll cosnider that an admission that what you call "pearls" are more aking
> to horse apples.
Do swine eat apples?
Bama Brian
>> >
>> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>>
>> BZZZT! Wrong! And another example of the fine ehjumacation provided by
>> the fedgov's public indoctrination skools checks in...
>
> Why do you assume that I'm an American?
>
Ah, I see from your address that you are a subject. Then please
substitute the phrase "inferior state-run" for the word "fedgov's" in my
post.
In any case, the US RKBA has got nothing to do with militia, except that
without such a right, the militia in any form is not possible.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
VFW
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
and this just in;'
Have you seen the newest "Call of Duty" games ?
http://www.studentprintz.com/call-of-duty-call-to-terror-1.933270
Is this a recruitment tool for the military?
How about it's affect of "Conflict Resolution" skills.
Does this \"Game" makes killing easy and guilt-less. Numbing the masses
to the reality of killing?
--
money; what a concept!