catsix - I wasn’t a participant in the gun control thread. Don’t know that we’ve crossed paths, but I checked out the first couple o’ pages of that thread, and found the relevant posts.
minty said
[quote]
For clarification: The only part of that quote I take issue with is the highlighted portion:
In other words, his position seems to be that he sees no evidence that the framers included the highlighted portion in their concept of bearing arms - he doesn’t believe that they said this. When you ask him to prove that, it is indeed an impossability - since in order to do so, he’d have to cite **absolutely everything ** they ever said in order to demonstrate that they ‘never said that’. So, he’s correct here, you were asking for something that couldn’t be done.
If you believe that the framers did in fact intend the highlighted portion, you should be able to come up with some evidence that they did. Kinda like how Mark Furman got caught up - he asserted that he’d never said a certain word. All that was necessary to do was to demonstrate that he had, even once.
I could assert that the framers meant a right to be rich is implied in their ‘right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness’, since being rich would make my life more free and happy, but absent some documentation that was their intent, we’d have to assume, no. and I wouldn’t be able to ‘prove’ my point by demanding that you prove that they **didn’t ** say that.
So we women have someone to find attractive, too. Not only can he debate, he is a hunk, and I got to see him in his rapier, boots, tights, flowing shirt, and Musketeer-era hat with feather at Scarborough Faire.
Sigh. There is just something about a guy who is gallant and can carry his sword well.
Why on Earth? Wouldn’t being a practicing historian make him more qualified, not less? (I would object to the geek label, too, but that isn’t germane.)
Sorry, Ziactrice, but I just don’t need a second who’s dressed in leather pants and a Seinfeld pirate suit while crying “Huzzah!” all through the duel.
Oh, that’s easy. I’m an appellate lawyer. It’s much harder to pull the wool over the eyes of a panel of judges than a bunch of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty.
He’s a master of condescension. It’s really impressive how arrogant he is. And god DAMN do I wish I could master that ability he has to believe that nobody else could EVER be right about anything.
Snort! You would not be so unfairly contemptuous of Ex-Tank’s talents if you had seen the way the fellow can speed-draw and cock a double-barreled, old-fashioned derringer. (He had both, pistol and sword. Maybe he was once a Boy Scout?)
Besides, who would be crazy enough to try to wear leather pants in the heat of a Dallas, Texas day? <Seinfeld voice/> Talk about your chafing problems!</Seinfeld voice>
Not that I’d mind if he tried, of course, I’d just hang around with a bottle of water hoping to ‘save’ him later… and watch.
not to mention the excedrin headache I got finding the offending post (nicely linked and quoted on the first page), wherein I show exactly what he said and demonstrated why her demand of ‘proof’ was impossible, as minty claimed.
Here’s a really big tip - you do your side more harm than good if you don’t have the good graces to admit, ‘oops, I misunderstood’ or whatever, rather than, as you do here, make an assertion, fail to back it up and then rely on ‘well, he’s a real big poopy head’ as a rebuttal.
and, I have made it a point to stay out of gun control threads anyhow, so I really don’t have a dog in that race.
Awww, but EVERYBODY apparently loves ExTank. Maybe I need to get a sword and a puffy shirt after all. But would I have to start ordering tankards of ale instead of Shiner Bock?
Maybe I need to get a sword and a puffy shirt after all. But would I have to start ordering tankards of ale instead of Shiner Bock?