No.Originally Posted by The Astute Reader(tm)
Learn reading comprehension.
There are classes.
Member
No.
Learn reading comprehension.
There are classes.
Member
"Troll it elsewhere."
Member
Sounds like a road trip!
Member
You actually know less about the English language than you purportedly believe you do.
The English language is far more dynamic than you wish to admit.
Quotation marks around a word, to indicate irony, is grammatically correct. For every instance you find that says it isn't, I can find 10 that say it is. So, there's absolutley no point debating an issue that you will ultimately lose.
But you might consider reading this to help you expand your mind:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ammar-claypole
"By relying on grammar rules in class, learners are in danger of becoming detached from the dynamism of spoken language.
In particular, it is pointless to debate whether the hamburger slogan represents correct use of a stative verb. If the rule does not match such widespread usage, it is the rule, not the example, that has to go.
But why are grammar rules so elusive? Why do so many items of vocabulary seem to defy the attempts of lexicographers to tie them down to anything other than a vaguely defined core meaning? Why does the socio-cultural context of today exert such a powerful influence on the received meaning of tomorrow?
The answer lies in the dynamic nature of language itself and in the complex network of ever-changing patterns that are constantly being expanded and reformed through an ongoing process of interaction, iteration and feedback.
Sometimes a simple phrase can, through a process of quasi-repetition, spread from its initial roots to spark off a new generation of inferences. Thus, the example cited above is being used by a British telecoms provider to capitalise on a popular catch-phrase from a 1990s comedy series in which the question, "Does my bum look big in this?" is repeated in a variety of humorous situations."
Member
Yep. Poor astute fumbles his pot-shot at me yet again.
Better luck next time, AR.
Member
Your premise has already been proven invalid yet you continue to push it. The second amendment inadvertently allows a higher level of individual self defense but that is not its purpose. Show me in the Federalist Papers where the purpose of the 2nd amendment is explained as for "self defense".
Member
I missed it, Smokey. Enlighten me, please.
"Inadvertently?"
The Federalist papers are not the law in the United States of America.
FYI, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that the Second protects our individual right to self-defense.
I guess Scalia didn't read the Federalist Papers, either.
Member
No, obviously life in prison with no parole for this guy is what is needed. I guarantee that incients like this would drop to zero.
Member
We've been through this before. I explained it to you but like a child with their fingers in their ears you didn't want to hear it.
Yes, self defense is not the reason for the amendment but it allows you to be armed so self defense is a by product."Inadvertently?"
I never said they were but its apparent you don't know what they are.The Federalist papers are not the law in the United States of America.
It does but like I said its not the purpose.FYI, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has held that the Second protects our individual right to self-defense.
Wouldn't surprise me.I guess Scalia didn't read the Federalist Papers, either.
Member
A lotta words to say nothing.
What crime do YOU think warrants forcing somebody to be a lifelong target for the George Zimmermans in the country?
Member
You just don't want to hear it.
I think Madison is a better source than Scalia.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)For the most part I believe there should be few restrictions on the right to be armed. But if someone is mentally ill or a violent criminal then I think they should be restricted.What crime do YOU think warrants forcing somebody to be a lifelong target for the George Zimmermans in the country?
Member
Regardless of your own personal thoughts, Madison was never a Supreme Court Justice.
And Scalia is.
And the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
Are you talking about someone who is mentally ill and someone who was a violent criminal?
The debt is never repaid?
Member
BS, Madison wrote the Constitution. Are you suggesting that Scalia knows more than Madison about what Madison wrote?Regardless of your own personal thoughts, Madison was never a Supreme Court Justice.
And Scalia is.
And the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
Maybe, maybe not it would depend on the circumstances wouldn't it? But that's just my opinion.Are you talking about someone who is mentally ill and someone who was a violent criminal?
The debt is never repaid?
Last edited by Baltimatt; 02-21-2013 at 07:18 AM. Reason: Fix quote tag
Member
LOL!
BS, Madison wrote the Constitution. Are you suggesting that Scalia knows more than Madison about what Madison wrote?
Are you trying to tell us that the Federalist Papers are the law???
Could we restrict their right to go to Church?
Deny them a jury trial?
Member
Madison did not write the Constitution. He was the Convention's recording secretary and kept notes on all the decisions the group made and a running draft. But to say he wrote it is wrong. (Morris wrote in the literal sense!)
BS, Madison wrote the Constitution. Are you suggesting that Scalia knows more than Madison about what Madison wrote?
Maybe, maybe not it would depend on the circumstances wouldn't it? But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by Baltimatt; 02-21-2013 at 07:19 AM.
Member
Try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_madisonJames Madison, Jr. (March 16, 1751 (O.S. March 5) – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman and political theorist, the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817). He is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution” for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.[
Last edited by Baltimatt; 02-21-2013 at 07:19 AM.
Member
Get your fingers out of your ears. I already told you that I am not trying to say any such thing. Do I have to tell you what they are?LOL!
Are you trying to tell us that the Federalist Papers are the law???
Could we restrict their right to go to Church?
Deny them a jury trial?
Probably not but that is beside the point.
Last edited by Baltimatt; 02-21-2013 at 07:19 AM.
Member
Do I have to tell you again what they are NOT?
DUH!
Member
What makes you think I am saying they are the law? They are explanations of the Constitution which is law. DUH!
Member
What's your point?
There are TONS of "explanations of the Constitution which is the law" out there.
There is only one LAW, though.
The Second protects our individual right to self-defense.
IT'S THE LAW.
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote
