Author Topic: Charlton Heston's speech (Read 4672 times)

Shuckins · « **Reply #165 on:** August 12, 2002, 07:36:53 PM »

What's the record for the largest number of posts in a single thread?

Curious, Shuckins

Kieran · « **Reply #166 on:** August 12, 2002, 07:46:07 PM »

I think the reason we still have guns is a reflection that the Second Amendment is indeed crystal clear, and even revisionist history is going to struggle big-time to redefine such a clearly stated line.

Thrawn · « **Reply #167 on:** August 12, 2002, 08:03:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra

And if we can get people to struggle on what the defination of the word "is" is, then surely it's not a stretch to see that it's not hard to find an arguement over the founder's intent.

To assume that something IS something, is to give it some sort of universal Aristotalist "essence". Thomist Aristotalism is centruies dead. And so is the body of Christ.

The miracle of transubstancatiion. It might look, smell, feel and taste like a piece of bread, but after mass, it's essence becomes the body of Christ. It seems like it IS bread, but secretly due to the miracle it IS the body of Christ.

You see someone you know from a distance. You know it IS "Ted". Then Ted comes up to you and pulls off a mask. Oh, it turns out it IS Ralph.

Blah, blah blah...perspective..yadda yadda..quantum states, relativity..blah

Kieran · « **Reply #168 on:** August 12, 2002, 08:07:53 PM »

Obfuscation.

Shuckins · « **Reply #169 on:** August 12, 2002, 08:09:53 PM »

Eschew obfuscation!

Shuckins

Thrawn · « **Reply #170 on:** August 12, 2002, 08:32:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Obfuscation.

IS it?

Kieran · « **Reply #171 on:** August 12, 2002, 08:40:41 PM »

Kieran · « **Reply #172 on:** August 12, 2002, 10:12:55 PM »

Quote

Risks
HIV. . .
The Centers for Disease Control has:
Documented 32 cases of occupationally transmitted HIV in health care workers, including 12 nurses.
Investigated another 69 cases, including 14 nurses.
These are reported cases. Many exposures go unreported for fear of discrimination or loss of confidentiality.

Had some time to kill...

And consider this as well...

Quote

In general, the AMA Code of Medical Ethics states that physicians are free to choose whom to serve (see Principles of Medical Ethics, Principle VI), but that "physicians have an obligation to support continuity of care for their patients" (Opinion 8.115, "Termination of the Patient-Physician Relationship"). Once a patient-physician relationship has been established, the physician should not neglect a patient (see Opinion 8.11, "Neglect of Patient"). Opinion 8.115 provides guidance on how physicians should proceed in circumstances when it is necessary to terminate the patient-physician relationship.

In short, this means a doctor can end patient-physician relationships anytime, so long as continuous care is provided, and in turn means a doctor can terminate an HIV positive patient, and even refuse care in the first place.

Cobra · « **Reply #173 on:** August 12, 2002, 10:25:24 PM »

LOL Thrawn!

Cobra

Hortlund · « **Reply #174 on:** August 13, 2002, 02:27:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

You all enjoy your next witch hunt too. Remember, "a duck floats on water!".

So if Ive understood this correct,
laws prohibiting HIV infected dentists from treating patients without first informing them of their infection =witch hunt?

The PC hysterics never cease to amaze me...

Toad · « **Reply #175 on:** August 13, 2002, 07:12:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

I disagree. If the 2nd Amendment were "quite clear," there would be no need for "2nd Amendment Scholars" nor would there be any argument over the founder's intent.

Disagree.

As Cobra pointed out, you even have people trying to redefine "is".

A lawyer will argue any point if there's a penny in it for him.

The clarity of the 2nd merely enrages those that oppose firearms; they simply can't accept it. Thus the argument.

The intent as written is very clear. Further, anyone who has done a little research on the other written commentary on arms by the folks that actually wrote the Bill of Rights has no doubt about their intent.

For example, Jefferson:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

Pretty clear what Jefferson thought, eh?

Toad · « **Reply #176 on:** August 13, 2002, 08:10:02 AM »

Take a look at the way Madison originally framed the 2nd in a speech to the House of Representatives, June 8, 1789,

James Madison Proposes the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Not too confusing to me. There's more than sufficient evidence to devine the intent of those who wrote.. and passed... the 2nd.

Toad · « **Reply #177 on:** August 13, 2002, 08:15:15 AM »

What, still not convinced?

"The great object is, that every man be armed ....Every one who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry: During Virginia's ratification convention, (1788), in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution at 386, Jonathan Elliot, (New York, Burt Franklin: 1888)

Toad · « **Reply #178 on:** August 13, 2002, 08:17:02 AM »

Don't like Patrick Henry????

How about Sam Adams? Pretty piviotal figure in starting the whole dang Revolution thing.. one would think his view would count........

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams:During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, (1788), Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Toad · « **Reply #179 on:** August 13, 2002, 08:26:46 AM »

Still no?

Hamilton then?

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Richard Henry Lee maybe?

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …" - Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

Enough yet?