A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Leaving the community



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 5th 04, 04:16 PM
Earl Grieda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #2  
Old November 5th 04, 04:42 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
  #3  
Old November 5th 04, 11:45 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #4  
Old November 5th 04, 11:45 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #5  
Old November 6th 04, 04:50 AM
Earl Grieda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #6  
Old November 6th 04, 01:27 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #7  
Old November 6th 04, 09:33 PM
Everett M. Greene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 81 March 20th 04 02:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.