Leaving the community

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Earl Grieda wrote:


You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
of these terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.

I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

Earl G

Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.


That would be whatever weaponry is used by a modern military force.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Yes, Earl really should learn when to stop digging the hole he's in.


Matt

Earl Grieda wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Earl Grieda wrote:



You better go back and learn what "well regulated" meant in the time
when the Constitution was written. And while you are at it, learn
what militia meant at that time as well. Hint, the meanings aren't
at all the same as the generally accepted meanings today.





Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution
of these terms.

Read your history for christs sake. The militia was not an
organized army like we have today, the original framers wanted no part
of a United States Army. They thought that if things got bad the US
Army would basically have a coup and take over the country. Every
able bodied adult male was considered to be the militia.


I am not the one making the claim. It is the responsibility of the person
making the claim to prove it, or state that it is his opinion.

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is possible
that what this person claims is true. But in that case we need to use the
definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.


Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Earl G

Earl Grieda wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.



Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Matt

Matt Whiting writes:
Earl Grieda wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote
Earl Grieda wrote:

However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
of Rights was written.

I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
then.

Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
50% of the population.

Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Cannon were so common that the colonists had to steal
them from the Brits for use in Boston and even then
didn't have much ammunition for them. It was a good
bluff, though, that worked.