The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: ChuckJ on December 18, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
-
I had rowed over to the island to find some comedy relief and stumbled upon the below post by the trained historian.
Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #34)Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:19 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,581 posts)
36. I think so
And I prefer we start going back to 1791 and the context of the second amendment.
It does not need a revision, it needs a correct interpretation
In modern parlance, you want an infantry rifle, you join the guard.
Well regulated was lost somewhere.
As well the fact that the amendment speaks of the needs of the state...individuals come dead last...in the 18th century it makes sense. You had a Kentucky Long Rifle, you served with the local militia.
That's what I want to see. A return to what they really meant...and contemporaneous papers are legion. They meant Switzerland, not the current mayhem.
Hamilton was even prophetic in Federalist 29.
nadalink (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022013045#post36)
It's been over 25 years since I had a history class. I also freely admit that I'm not a trained historian. With that said, I was always under the impression that the entire focus of the Bill of Rights was the individual. Just from a common sense standpoint, it really doesn't make sense to have the first amendment focus on the individual, the second to focus on the government, then the next eight to focus on the individual again.
Believe it or not I'm really beginning to doubt that she's a trained historian. I don't even think she knows the history of rifffles.
edit to add: Maybe she's a Train (the music group) historian. Maybe she knows all their songs or something.
-
you want an infantry rifle
Doesn't she mean "riffle"? "Amendment"? "Contemporaneous?" An entire post with no misspelled words?
There's no way this post is the work of nutcase nadin. It's simply not possible.
-
Doesn't she mean "riffle"? "Amendment"? "Contemporaneous?" An entire post with no misspelled words?
There's no way this post is the work of nutcase nadin. It's simply not possible.
It's her.
The tell-tale is the arrogant "I prefer" and "correct interpretation," as if the fat crazy bald dwarf is the one who knows all, knows the truth, and so is empowered to determine our destinies.
Bah humbug.
-
I had rowed over to the island to find some comedy relief.....
It seems to me the fat crazy bald dwarf would profit greatly from reading Benjamin Franklin, who advised against adamantly stating an opinion as fact, and instead endear listeners by coming across as open-minded, by using "it seems to me."
It seems to me the fat crazy bald dwarf has a God complex.
-
It's her.
The tell-tale is the arrogant "I prefer" and "correct interpretation," as if the fat crazy bald dwarf is the one who knows all, knows the truth, and so is empowered to determine our destinies.
Bah humbug.
I agree with frank.
She may have a spell-checker that does autocorrect. That particular 'rifle' was one that the spell-checker was able to slip past her. Normally she catches that pesky spell-checker. I can see her now sitting at the computer and cursing, "why in the hell does this pesky computer keep changing my words!!! Who the hell has ever heard of a 'rifle'?"
-
Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #34)Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:19 PM
nadinbrzezinski (113,581 posts)
36. I think so
And I prefer we start going back to 1791 and the context of the second amendment.
It does not need a revision, it needs a correct interpretation
In modern parlance, you want an infantry rifle, you join the guard.
Well regulated was lost somewhere.
As well the fact that the amendment speaks of the needs of the state...individuals come dead last...in the 18th century it makes sense. You had a Kentucky Long Rifle, you served with the local militia.
That's what I want to see. A return to what they really meant...and contemporaneous papers are legion. They meant Switzerland, not the current mayhem.
Hamilton was even prophetic in Federalist 29.
O.K. I will gladly go back to a Kentucky long rifle if the media goes back to hand presses and a non amplified, non electronic means of delivering news and speech.