House Panel clears National Carry

[Bubba613]

Modern dictioaries are irrelevant in discussing usage from 1789. Equally, contemporary dictionaries are less persuasive than how language is used in the document itself. If you can find where the Constitution uses "people" as a plural for person than you would have a strong case. I pointed out where the plural is persons,not people. Your turn.

 

[beatledog7]

Quote:
Do we need someone to interpret a stop sign? It says "stop," and without any legal scholars or politicians to hold our hand or guide our thoughts, we know it means "stop."

Response:
And if I argue that "stop" doesn't really mean stop when it's 3:00 in the morning, and there's not another car in sight for miles, what then? If nobody is empowered to determine the meaning of "stop", and my interpretation is as good as anyone's, of what use is the stop sign?

You are not empowered to interpret it, and if you do not stop you can be ticketed, 3:00 a.m. and no traffic notwithstanding.

Quote:
Every time we pass a stop sign and don't stop--unless a lawfully defined temporary overrule is in place (a policeman, for example)--we're breaking the law.

Response:
No, no, I disagree. Clearly the intent of the stop sign is to allow the orderly and safe passage of traffic. Surely, the sign was never intended to require vehicles to stop when there is demonstrably no traffic whatsoever; this is not the situation for which the sign was created or installed. Do I win?

No, sorry. You just described a yield sign, which allows the driver to interpret the situation and proceed according to his discernment. Stop signs are stop signs, period. Most drivers roll past one once in a while, but each time we do that we are acting unlawfully and risking a ticket.

Quote:
The Founders meant for the Constitution to be read in the same manner, including 2A.

Response:
So what happens when you and Chuck Schumer disagree about what the 2nd Amendment means?

I don't make any argument about what it "means" beyond what it says. I simply read it and know what it says.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Q: So what happens when you and Chuck Schumer disagree about what the 2nd Amendment means?

A: I don't make any argument about what it "means" beyond what it says. I simply read it and know what it says.

You read it and you know what it means, eh? And everybody else must abide by what you know it to mean. It seems that you are OK with somebody interpreting the Constitution, as long as it's you.

Of course laws and Constitutions need interpretation. Sometimes that interpretation is very simple, but it's still necessary when some party disputes what ought to be the clear meaning, like that stop sign. Sometimes the interpretation is much more difficult, when many simultaneously applicable powers and rights come into conflict. If nobody is empowered to judge how the law applies, then the law cannot be applied.

 

[beatledog7]

ttolhurst, I don't interpret it. I read it. Stop means stop.

 

[oneounceload]

It's very obvious to me that there are two decidedly divisive factions on this and it has now become a circular urinating contest

this thread has run its course

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bubba613,

Amendment IV uses the word "people" and "persons" in the same context. I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned a warrant to be issued calling for the whole of the people and all they own to be seized. Obama might think differently, but not the Founding Fathers.

Woody

 

[Birch Knoll]

I don't interpret it. I read it. Stop means stop.

And I respectfully disagree. If we want to resolve what it really means, we have to agree to the abide by authority of an impartial arbiter. Otherwise, my opinion is just as good as yours.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm not sure where this derailed, and 9 pages is too much to dig through to find out, but it seems to have fallen off the high road somewhere along the way.

Please try not to make these things personal. We'll close it for now and see where this legislation goes.