On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:29 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
* > It's not nearly as thin as the air that says it's a musket. It's the > obvious functional interpretation. * > I interpret that to mean you don't believe in the "original intent" interpretation. > > *The use of "arms" to mean any weapon is clearly a derivative extension of > what a combatant originally wielded with his arm.* > Well, I admit a linguist would say the weapon meaning of the word "arms" is derived from the word for the limbs human beings used to manipulate things, and a linguist would also say the derivation of the word "calculus" comes from the Greek word for small stone or pebble, but I don't think having completed a study of pebbles will help you much on a calculus exam. >> In 1787 the people that made cannons and warships were called arms >> manufacturers and that hasn't changed. It may be absurd but that's the world >> we live in because nuclear weapons are called "arms'', remember the SALT >> talks from the 1970s, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks? They were >> about the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons manufactured by the US >> and USSR. > > > * > But they certainly didn't mean that in order to have well regulated > militia people had the right to keep and bear frigates. * > True, it's impossible for one man to carry a frigate, but it's certainly possible for one man to carry and activate a nuclear warhead, so I don't see your point. I'm also surprised to hear you bring up the "well regulated militia" bit because for years courts have been pretending that line didn't exist in the Constitution. The only well regulated militias are state national guard units, and only a tiny percentage of the population are members of the national guard, but there are more privately owned guns in the US than there are people in the country. And even when national guard members are called to duty they don't use their personal guns, they use weapons provided by the state. I think the second amendment is the most sloppily written part of the constitution, and that's really saying something considering what a very imperfect document it is. At least the parts about slavery are clear, they're not stupid, they're just evil. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > , > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1723kyimuWSppY8U5mhHUoSBsCv4w6n0n9TsfASLO3Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
