See, if you'd led with that, I'd be a lot less suspicious of your tactics. But earlier you wrote, "They did not say weapons, they did not say guns, they did not even talk of self defence, they said 'bear arms'. And there's the rub. What exactly is 'baring arms'?" and "Could it be, perhaps, that the Second Amendment was stated as an Archaic Phrase, [...]".
You didn't say, "Hey, there's good evidence that the phrase meant something else; here's a URL or enough detail to start a Google search." Instead you went with a nebulous "do we even know what words mean?" way of saying things, which is more often used as a derailing tactic. So from here I see four possibilities (out of however many there actually are): (1) you were derailing and got lucky with Google after you were called on it, (2) you were baiting me into a trap to score points, (3) you really suck at this, (4) there's a serious mismatch of communication styles confusing us.
At this point I'm not sure how much I care which of those four it is, and here's why:
As you yourself first said, "If either side were entirely serious about this, they wouldn't be arguing with each other about what the Second Amendment 'means'," and here we are arguing about just that under an entry that did not address that in the first place -- you shifted my "these are not new, not unusual" to "these are not what 'gun' meant to the Framers"; you are the one who steered this thread to "what does the second amendment mean?"
Do I want to discuss this or score points? Well, I wasn't planning to discuss this in an entry that starts out with, "This isn't about whether we need more gun control or less or already have about the right amount, nor is it about what kinds of gun control are appropriate, nor whether guns make us safer. Nor is it about exactly what the Second Amendment means. It's just some terminology and a few uncomplicated background facts to make sure everyone's clear on what the words mean, when you put your opinions into words or hear somebody else opining." So congratulations, you have derailed this from what I was trying to accomplish, into ... what you said was a mark of people not being serious.
When I get around to an "ideas about what I thing we should / can do about guns" entry, I'll be taking into account this new-to-me linguistic information you've linked to (though I expect it to be less important in practical political terms than whatever the Supreme Court currently says it means). So thank you for teaching me something I didn't know. At the same time, fuck you for the derailing. As contradictory as that sounds, both the thank-you and the fuck-you are sincere.
I said what I said because I thought that the Second Amendment being archaically phrased should be patently obvious.
You wanted to say that people calling semi-automatics a recent invention were stupid, I pointed out that they are recent when taken on a historical time scale including the second amendment. I mean, my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames, you were the one who departed off into "what the founding fathers meant". If there was any derailing here, you were the one who jumped the tracks. Don't bring up "what the founding fathers meant" if you don't want to discuss it.
And to be frank, you do not get to make an argument, then claim any rebuttal to that argument is "derailment" of what you wanted to say. At least not, and retain my respect. Which you have lost.
"my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames"
Uh huh. Which you thought was important to point out in case anybody reading forgot that 1880 and 1789 aren't right next to each other, not because you wanted to recast "new/modern" in terms of originalism?
"my respect. Which you have lost"
I am completely unsurprised that the loss of respect is mutual. That was expected. For the record, I consider the derailment to have begun with your first comment, not with your response to my saying why your first comment wasn't relevant.
Well, if you wanted to say my point was irrelevant, and you considered it "derailment", why did you post a five paragraph ramble on original intent? I mean, if you really thought that I was trying to derail the debate, why accelerate off the tracks with all your might? Did you really think I would not think you actually wanted to discuss the things you had brought up in your reply?
Bringing up "Derailment" the way you have is one of the truly petulant "internet argument techniques". Want to wind back from taking an awkward position on something, cry "Derailment" and insist that all that part of the discussion be ignored.
(no subject)
You didn't say, "Hey, there's good evidence that the phrase meant something else; here's a URL or enough detail to start a Google search." Instead you went with a nebulous "do we even know what words mean?" way of saying things, which is more often used as a derailing tactic. So from here I see four possibilities (out of however many there actually are): (1) you were derailing and got lucky with Google after you were called on it, (2) you were baiting me into a trap to score points, (3) you really suck at this, (4) there's a serious mismatch of communication styles confusing us.
At this point I'm not sure how much I care which of those four it is, and here's why:
As you yourself first said, "If either side were entirely serious about this, they wouldn't be arguing with each other about what the Second Amendment 'means'," and here we are arguing about just that under an entry that did not address that in the first place -- you shifted my "these are not new, not unusual" to "these are not what 'gun' meant to the Framers"; you are the one who steered this thread to "what does the second amendment mean?"
Do I want to discuss this or score points? Well, I wasn't planning to discuss this in an entry that starts out with, "This isn't about whether we need more gun control or less or already have about the right amount, nor is it about what kinds of gun control are appropriate, nor whether guns make us safer. Nor is it about exactly what the Second Amendment means. It's just some terminology and a few uncomplicated background facts to make sure everyone's clear on what the words mean, when you put your opinions into words or hear somebody else opining." So congratulations, you have derailed this from what I was trying to accomplish, into ... what you said was a mark of people not being serious.
When I get around to an "ideas about what I thing we should / can do about guns" entry, I'll be taking into account this new-to-me linguistic information you've linked to (though I expect it to be less important in practical political terms than whatever the Supreme Court currently says it means). So thank you for teaching me something I didn't know. At the same time, fuck you for the derailing. As contradictory as that sounds, both the thank-you and the fuck-you are sincere.
(no subject)
You wanted to say that people calling semi-automatics a recent invention were stupid, I pointed out that they are recent when taken on a historical time scale including the second amendment. I mean, my original comment was solely that, a two paragraph reminder about historical time frames, you were the one who departed off into "what the founding fathers meant". If there was any derailing here, you were the one who jumped the tracks. Don't bring up "what the founding fathers meant" if you don't want to discuss it.
And to be frank, you do not get to make an argument, then claim any rebuttal to that argument is "derailment" of what you wanted to say. At least not, and retain my respect. Which you have lost.
(no subject)
Uh huh. Which you thought was important to point out in case anybody reading forgot that 1880 and 1789 aren't right next to each other, not because you wanted to recast "new/modern" in terms of originalism?
"my respect. Which you have lost"
I am completely unsurprised that the loss of respect is mutual. That was expected. For the record, I consider the derailment to have begun with your first comment, not with your response to my saying why your first comment wasn't relevant.
(no subject)
Bringing up "Derailment" the way you have is one of the truly petulant "internet argument techniques". Want to wind back from taking an awkward position on something, cry "Derailment" and insist that all that part of the discussion be ignored.
(no subject)