quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]officials of the National Rifle Association on Friday called for Congress to appropriate funds to put police officers in every American school.
The mind boggles at the sheer number of people required, let alone the cost.
Did anyone else laugh at the fact that the NRA's solution to keeping America free from government tyranny was to have the government create a private army of hundreds of thousands of armed guards?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm too tired of this stupid conversation to find the NRA funny anymore. They're a threat to the country.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I laughed at how the NRA's completely brain-dead response is literally the plot to kindergarten cop
I laughed at their solution being having guns around, despite the fact Columbine had an armed police officer on duty on campus, and VA tech had an entire group of them on campus, and ft. hood was literally a military base.
I laughed at them being an organization that says we can't have future regulatory things done to guns but a national mental illness registry is an awesome idea.
Anyway a crazed american gunman went and shot and killed multiple people literally while the NRA conference was taking place so laughter on hold.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I laughed at their solution being having guns around...
Here's the thing: it's not funny because they genuinely believe it. These are people who bring guns with them to Kmart because they don't believe that they're safe at Kmart without a gun.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm too tired of this stupid conversation to find the NRA funny anymore. They're a threat to the country.
Yeah, well, at least I came into this conversation recognizing that it was going to be stupid. Immensely stupid. Gun debate is still driven fundamentally by the circle-the-wagons mentality of people who seriously own guns in part because they expect that having them is nationally important on some level to be able to shoot government goons or foreign slant-eyed invaders and safeguard liberty from tyrrany.
But to you and anyone who recognizes the NRA as a threat, take heart. This press conference was so bad — so bad — that they're getting a place on the jump the shark significant potential for impending irrelevancy list. They have turned into an onion parody of themselves, especially the point at which they propose the fulfillment of this 'more guns in school' solution through the use of volunteers. Not officers of the law. Just people who have been apparently vetted as knowing how to use guns to some degree.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I laughed at their solution being having guns around...
Here's the thing: it's not funny because they genuinely believe it. These are people who bring guns with them to Kmart because they don't believe that they're safe at Kmart without a gun.
Then I realized Blayne mentioned "gotcha journalism" in his post.
But yeah, the quote sums up my opinion of that article.
Is it incorrect about the text of George Mason's draft or the Virgina Declaration of Right?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant.
The constitutionality of guns and literally the entire second amendment is irrelevant as to why any american would consider gun ownership a right?
This is like saying the first amendment is irrelevant to an american considering free speech a right, or irrelevant to the issue of free speech as a right at all.
You're completely wrong and you need to own up to it and move on.
When you have someone literally saying that there shouldn't by any regulation or additional cost because people of limited means cannot exercise their second amendment rights in one breath, but on the other say its perfectly alright to restrict voting and damn to the consequences of whomever will have financial difficulties in doing so; and sees these things as entirely difference and distinct because. Then I believe it to be a legitimate question to consider whether or not the second amendment has any relevance in order to press the point that their understanding of the constitution is woefully inadequate.
IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: Not to my knowledge, no. That would be inexcusably bad, though, wouldn't it? To screw up a quote of text? Yikes! Even people who agree with the axe they're grinding would take exception to a basic factual inaccuracy like that.
That's not what I was getting at, though. I was reacting to the histrionic and insulting tone of the piece. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Thus "why do you consider gun control a right" is a very important question because the constitutionality of the question is irrelevant.
The constitutionality of guns and literally the entire second amendment is irrelevant as to why any american would consider gun ownership a right?
This is like saying the first amendment is irrelevant to an american considering free speech a right, or irrelevant to the issue of free speech as a right at all.
You're completely wrong and you need to own up to it and move on.
When you have someone literally saying that there shouldn't by any regulation or additional cost because people of limited means cannot exercise their second amendment rights in one breath, but on the other say its perfectly alright to restrict voting and damn to the consequences of whomever will have financial difficulties in doing so; and sees these things as entirely difference and distinct because. Then I believe it to be a legitimate question to consider whether or not the second amendment has any relevance in order to press the point that their understanding of the constitution is woefully inadequate.
What?
Who are you even talking about at this point?
Seriously, man, proofread your freaking posts. Add some white space. Re-read your sentences. This is such a hash of stream-of-consciousness ranting, and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate: Not to my knowledge, no. That would be inexcusably bad, though, wouldn't it? To screw up a quote of text? Yikes! Even people who agree with the axe they're grinding would take exception to a basic factual inaccuracy like that.
That's not what I was getting at, though. I was reacting to the histrionic and insulting tone of the piece.
So the background information (which is what I was providing) was correct. Yes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Kate: Not to my knowledge, no. That would be inexcusably bad, though, wouldn't it? To screw up a quote of text? Yikes! Even people who agree with the axe they're grinding would take exception to a basic factual inaccuracy like that.
That's not what I was getting at, though. I was reacting to the histrionic and insulting tone of the piece.
So the background information (which is what I was providing) was correct. Yes?
Ah, I see.
I didn't realize you were only linking it for the text of the old amendments. I thought you were also linking it for the explanation the article gives of that text, and what it means, and what it's implications are.
I disagree with the article on all those points, and I think it did a lousy job actually arguing them. I saw the whole article as "background" because they're trying to spin the historical facts to support their conclusions.
But if you were just linking it for the facts in the beginning, and not the conclusions, then I misunderstood! Sorry about that! I do think that the facts in the beginning of the article are valuable things to know, for what it's worth. So now that I understand your intent better, I appreciate you sharing. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think that the information fails to give some clue as to the intent of the framers? And what right they meant to enumerate?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the full text explains they had multiple intents in mind. I think there was a right they were enumerating as well as a broad policy statement that they were endorsing. The right made it into the US constitution; the broader policy was pretty thoroughly muddled.
I don't think the conclusions drawn by the article-writer make much sense.
Particularly, the idea that one of the intents was not that ordinary American citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms... well, I think that's pretty ludicrous. Just read the first sentence before the semicolon.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DO you think that what comes before and after the semicolon are in the paragraph coincidentally?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you think that the whole paragraph shed some light on the reason we have the right to bear arms and that ship sailed once we had a standing army anyway? There is nothing in there about self-defense or hunting or sport.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. No, I think that the right to keep and bear arms is clearly listed distinct from the passage about the militia. And, if anything, the latter parts of the paragraph support the second-amendment defense that Tom and others have mocked here: that one of the reasons lawful citizens should bear arms is in case they are needed to defend against foreign or domestic threats.
I'm not sure I personally agree with that as a major issue, but I think it's a logical reading of the passage. And congruent with the attitudes of the framers at the time.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, if anything, the latter parts of the paragraph support the second-amendment defense that Tom and others have mocked here: that one of the reasons lawful citizens should bear arms is in case they are needed to defend against foreign or domestic threats.
I haven't mocked it at all. It is, as far as I can tell, the only sensible rationale for the Second Amendment's existence. Which is why I'm asking how many of you guys who own guns have contingency plans for shooting cops when you're called upon to defend our liberty.
That said....
quote:No, I think that the right to keep and bear arms is clearly listed distinct from the passage about the militia.
I disagree entirely. That's like saying that in the sentence, "Sandwiches being needed to satiate the hungry, every man shall carry on his person a loaf of sliced bread at all times," the need to satiate the hungry has nothing to do with the bread requirement. Any assertion that the militia component is not an absolute requirement of the text as written is, I submit, a misreading. To my mind, the clear intent of the amendment is to ensure that each state be able to rally an army to defend itself from other states.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, they're semicolon separated, not comma separated.
"That the People have a Right to carry and to eat Bread; that a well made Sandwich, composed of various fixings between two slices of Bread, is the proper, natural, and safe Food of a free State; that Standing Restaurants in Time of plenty are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, Restaurants should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power."
Each semicolon denotes that now we're discussing a new right. Related, but distinct.
There's stuff in there about not having restaurants, and stuff about making sandwiches for people, but also stuff about having the specific right to carry your own bread. They're distinct rights.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On even the English, we would disagree. John E. McIntyre:
quote: I received a note a couple of days ago from a gentleman concerned about the placement of commas in the various drafts of the Second Amendment. And today, at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that "the text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical."
Well, The New Yorker may not be the best place to go for instruction on grammar and usage. The Founders (it's a little vexing to have to keep explaining this) loved Latinate constructions, one of which is the absolute, a phrase modifying a whole clause, often consisting of a noun and a participle. The Second Amendment opens with just such an absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Modifying the succeeding clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it puts the right in the context of the establishment and operation of a militia.
Commas don't much enter into it. Eighteenth-century writers like to insert a comma between subject and verb, though we don't follow such a convention any longer. The comma in the Second Amendment merely sets off the absolute.
We still have absolute phrases in English, and we typically set them off with commas, viz., The point having been made repeatedly, further discussion would seem idle.
quote:A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~
My father-in-law posted this on FB.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, this is the text of the Second Amendment, as printed in my little copy of the Constitution, recorded as ratified by the States, and as verified on the Internet:
quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't see a single semicolon.
capax may be impressed by the "lesson," but you appear to be reading a different document than the one that was ratified. The grammar here is completely clear and unambiguous: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Keeping and bearing arms in some way that does not contribute to or dovetail with a well-regulated militia falls completely outside of the provided justification internal to the amendment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't go so far as to say banning guns caused those deaths, but I also wouldn't go so far as to say it's utterly ridiculous either.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: On even the English, we would disagree. John E. McIntyre:
quote: I received a note a couple of days ago from a gentleman concerned about the placement of commas in the various drafts of the Second Amendment. And today, at The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin writes that "the text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical."
Well, The New Yorker may not be the best place to go for instruction on grammar and usage. The Founders (it's a little vexing to have to keep explaining this) loved Latinate constructions, one of which is the absolute, a phrase modifying a whole clause, often consisting of a noun and a participle. The Second Amendment opens with just such an absolute: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Modifying the succeeding clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it puts the right in the context of the establishment and operation of a militia.
Commas don't much enter into it. Eighteenth-century writers like to insert a comma between subject and verb, though we don't follow such a convention any longer. The comma in the Second Amendment merely sets off the absolute.
We still have absolute phrases in English, and we typically set them off with commas, viz., The point having been made repeatedly, further discussion would seem idle.
I'm going to address this below, when I respond to Tom.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Dan, this is the text of the Second Amendment, as printed in my little copy of the Constitution, recorded as ratified by the States, and as verified on the Internet:
quote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't see a single semicolon.
capax may be impressed by the "lesson," but you appear to be reading a different document than the one that was ratified. The grammar here is completely clear and unambiguous: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Keeping and bearing arms in some way that does not contribute to or dovetail with a well-regulated militia falls completely outside of the provided justification internal to the amendment.
I advise following the conversation more closely. I tried to think of a more polite way to put this, but I can't. You're arguing with me, you should at least pay attention to what I'm saying before you argue against it.
When you quoted me, I was talking to Kate. As evidenced, I think, by the numerous posts above the one you quoted. And Kate linked to an article (Here it is) which quotes George Mason's original draft of the 2nd Amendment. The article tries to argue that, in the original draft, it's clear the right has nothing to do with bearing arms personally, and only has to do with a militia.
Except it doesn't. It proves the exact opposite, as evidenced by my explanation above.
You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous. But that's not at all what I was addressing. I was taking down a very specific point Kate brought up in the article she linked.
quote:You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous.
No, it's not remotely ambiguous. It is completely unambiguous. That is the point I am making: that the text, as discussed and ratified, is unambiguously asserting a right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It's not possible to be confused on this point if you understand English grammar.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you asserting there's no other possible justification for the second clause than the first one?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Language Log recently weighed in on the Second Amendment too. The post also has a lot of links to previous posts. The main point is that the Second Amendment is not really ambiguous as written, though you could argue that it's (probably intentionally) vague. Reading it according to modern norms of grammar and punctuation is a mistake, I think.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really doesn't matter. Tom is aware, I am quite sure, that the basis of our interpretation of the constitution is a long history of precedent set by the supreme court. The fact that we *interpret* the 2nd ammendment to mean that we have a nearly fundamental, basic right to bear arms is clear. We do interpret it that way (most of the time).
I think what Tom is asserting is that the amendment in itself, regardless of later precedents set (and influenced by the need to maintain status quos in a changing technological world), is quite unambiguous about its purpose being to allow private citizens to bear arms in a militia. That is the intention of the opening phrase: to explain the purpose of the amendment. You'll notice: not every amendment bears such an explanation- particularly when enumerating a right that is seen as more focused on individual liberties. The amendment used this wording to preclude, quite adroitly, any state or local law which had as its intent to weaken the national government's ability to raise armies. No state could pass a law saying its people couldn't be armed, and so no state had a legal justification for neutrality in national conflicts. In addition, the federal government was precluded from limiting the ability of states to defend themselves.
Granted: this is the sticky wicket. The amendment was worded with the intention of *not* limiting the right to bear arms *only* in a militia, because the object was to preclude regulation of arms, in the hope that states or the federal government would not be able to then regulate away the feasibility of a militia. It is a legally defensive strategy: if you write: "shall not be infringe when serving in a militia," well, a lawyer then, as now, would grasp instantaneously that there is a weakness in the law, because the definition of a militia is subject to change- and the right is dependent on that definition. And anyway, you don't want to afford people a *right* to serve in the militia, nor do you want to provide a *right* for a militia to exist. You want to make it impossible *not* to allow a militia to be formed. This is how you do it. Which is why the mention of a militia is a throwaway clause at the beginning that only *explains* the purpose of the actual right, but doesn't form a basis *for* that right. They did not foresee what 250 years of precedent would do to that particular choice of wording, clever though it was.
This was a time in which such concerns were serious. England had (in their view) abused its power to tax the colonies, and was continually abusing its ironclad lock on international trade through taxes. The second amendment guaranteed that no prohibitive tax or regulation would weaken the individual states.
The amendment had little to do with individual gun ownership, largely because at the time of its inclusion in the constitution, individual gun ownership was * synonymous* with national military service. The rifled barrel itself, and the practicality of using guns to hunt for food were still relatively new. The notion of a handgun that could fire with an interval over twice a minute was unheard. Technology was just *way* different then. As was the concept of war, of a militia, etc. The basic terms of the 2nd amendment now refer to things that no longer exist, but apply to things which are the basis of our modern concepts of weapons, and the military.
quote:You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous.
No, it's not remotely ambiguous. It is completely unambiguous. That is the point I am making: that the text, as discussed and ratified, is unambiguously asserting a right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It's not possible to be confused on this point if you understand English grammar.
Not even gonna acknowledge the rest of my post, huh? Good God, Tom, show a little bit of integrity. The "point you are making" has nothing to do with what I had said, what you were ostensibly replying to/arguing against.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The article tries to argue that, in the original draft, it's clear the right has nothing to do with bearing arms personally, and only has to do with a militia.
Except it doesn't. It proves the exact opposite, as evidenced by my explanation above.
Are you actually under the impression that a previous draft of the constitution, unsigned and unratified, as the slightest bearing on how we should interpret the final draft?
Does it occur to you, in this, merely perhaps out of a sense of defensiveness, to consider that you are arguing the case of an interpretation, favored by you, using as evidence of that interpretation, material which is not included in the work being interpreted? Material which was purposefully *edited* and *changed*, ostensibly because it was *not satisfactory* to the signers?
The constitution is not intended as a work of art (as such). Our interpretations of it have legal consequences. We have to base those interpretations on very specific things. Previous drafts, whatever they contain, are not an element involved.
Here's where I think you are getting lost: When we talk about intent, we are *not* talking about what a particular person or a group of people wanted, in their heart of hearts, on some cool day in the fall of 1881 (or whenever). We are talking about the document that all those people, their various intents expressed in a process of drafting and passing a written constitution and later a bill of rights to add to it, wrote. That document, itself, communicates. It is not a message to us from the founders about *what they wanted*. We cannot use it as a means of devising their personal intentions. Intent is interpreted from the document itself- it is a representation of a democratic process, and represents the individual will or authority of exactly *no one*. That is the entire basis of the concept (a novel one at the time), that this document formed in itself, a complete guide to our definition of government, upon which all the laws of the land could be based. What a nice man in a tricorner hat *intended* on that day is not material here- nor is any previous draft, nor any subsequent statement- these are all based on individual will and intention- not a collective process. That is *exactly* why the constitution was written.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't understand, Sam. I've said already that it doesn't. Why ask again?
What part of this is confusing you?
He's not confused. He's teasing you for ignoring that you were called out on missing a basic fact, which rather indicates that you haven't, in this conversation, referred to the actual text very closely.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, Kate brought up the previous draft, not me. She did so to try and make a point.
It didn't make the point she wanted it to make. That's all I was ever saying. Your post is basically arguing the same thing I was saying (that th old draft is irrelevant) only you're using a different approach. Fine. But don't act like you're correcting me, dude. Talk to Kate.
I'm seriously boggled that you guys somehow missed this. Am I the only one actually reading every post in this thread, or what?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. He gave you an important, salient correction to your interpretation of the text. He's repeated exactly what his point was and why it was relevant to the claims you were making in this thread. The part he responded to was wherein you persisted with your own confusion and he stayed on target with his correction.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're still taking the wrong approach. I am correcting your approach- as long as you keep taking it, I'll keep correcting it. You may as well be wrong about both, if your understanding of the way the constitution works is the same as hers. Arguing in her terms is helping her, really, not doing any good- her terms are the problem, even more than her arguments.
If more people had a deeper understanding of how the constitution actually works- what it actually *is* beyond the canned textbook description, this kind of stuff wouldn't have to be discussed so much. As it is, you're getting a lecture because you have *basic* disconnects with the concepts at play. And you don't like it. Sorry, that's a tough one.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't understand, Sam. I've said already that it doesn't. Why ask again?
What part of this is confusing you?
He's not confused. He's teasing you for ignoring that you were called out on missing a basic fact, which rather indicates that you haven't, in this conversation, referred to the actual text very closely.
Oh for ****'s sake, seriously?
I was responding to Kate. The text she linked had semicolons. Clearly I'm the only one who actually followed her link. Fine, but don't tell me I missed something when I'm the only one who even paid attention to what she'd said.
When I was talking to Tom, I assumed he was referring to he same text she'd linked, since he was jumping in on something I said to her about said text. That he was oblivious to the context and was referring to the 2nd amendment didn't become clear until later.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe you should check your sources then? Seems like a good way of not looking foolish. Seem to recall you making a similar suggestion here and there. Or I don't know, carry around a copy of the constitution that you trust on a smart phone, or something. I do that. And I use it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it doesn't have a semicolon. And it doesn't make it more ambiguous, like you asserted, it makes it less ambiguous.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: In context, I was referring to the document Kate linked. I was 100% correct.
WHOOAAAAAAAA..... Bull**** 12 o'clock. You made a mistake and trusted a poorly edited source. Your problem. Don't compound your mistake now by weaseling out of it behind that. Just admit it was a mistake, and think about why you made it.
If you actually expect us only to ever argue with you based on specific *typo ridden* versions of official documents, you're insane.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
