<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: You keep using that word sarcastically</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/</link>
	<description>Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:29:31 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John Hardin</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208630</link>
		<dc:creator>John Hardin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:21:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208630</guid>
		<description>Also how does &quot;have and be able to ... use&quot; not clearly imply &quot;carry&quot;?

From indirect cite:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Smith&#039;s extensive statutory review confirms that &quot;bear&quot; did generally refer to the carrying of arms by militiamen.[59] Since statutes referring to the transportation of arms by individuals outside the militia context (e.g., statutes forbidding blacks and Indians to transport them) invariably used the word &quot;carry&quot; instead of &quot;bear,&quot; he concludes that the amendment&#039;s use of &quot;bear&quot; is designed to protect the carrying of arms outside the home only in the course of militia service.[60] In contrast, Smith finds that &quot;keep&quot; was commonly used in colonial and early state statutes to describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts, not just in relation to militia service. 
&lt;em&gt;http://www.guncite.com/journals/kmich.html#h2.1.3-1&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So there does seem to be some scholarly opinion that &quot;bear&quot;  refers only to militia-related activities as you state. Rats.

However, &quot;possession by individuals in all contexts&quot; could be argued to include carrying in self defense as a valid context.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also how does &#8220;have and be able to &#8230; use&#8221; not clearly imply &#8220;carry&#8221;?</p>
<p>From indirect cite:</p>
<blockquote><p>Smith&#8217;s extensive statutory review confirms that &#8220;bear&#8221; did generally refer to the carrying of arms by militiamen.[59] Since statutes referring to the transportation of arms by individuals outside the militia context (e.g., statutes forbidding blacks and Indians to transport them) invariably used the word &#8220;carry&#8221; instead of &#8220;bear,&#8221; he concludes that the amendment&#8217;s use of &#8220;bear&#8221; is designed to protect the carrying of arms outside the home only in the course of militia service.[60] In contrast, Smith finds that &#8220;keep&#8221; was commonly used in colonial and early state statutes to describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts, not just in relation to militia service.<br />
<em><a href="http://www.guncite.com/journals/kmich.html#h2.1.3-1" rel="nofollow">http://www.guncite.com/journals/kmich.html#h2.1.3-1</a></em></p></blockquote>
<p>So there does seem to be some scholarly opinion that &#8220;bear&#8221;  refers only to militia-related activities as you state. Rats.</p>
<p>However, &#8220;possession by individuals in all contexts&#8221; could be argued to include carrying in self defense as a valid context.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Hardin</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208571</link>
		<dc:creator>John Hardin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:50:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208571</guid>
		<description>thx, reading...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thx, reading&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayUncle</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208561</link>
		<dc:creator>SayUncle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208561</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I am amazed. Would you care to cite a “general interpretation” by some recognized authority on the 2nd Amendment and the founders’ intent&lt;/blockquote&gt;

IIRC, it&#039;s from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE
SECOND AMENDMENT&lt;/a&gt; by Glenn Reynolds. Will have to re-read later to verify. Busy now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I am amazed. Would you care to cite a “general interpretation” by some recognized authority on the 2nd Amendment and the founders’ intent</p></blockquote>
<p>IIRC, it&#8217;s from <a href="http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html" rel="nofollow">A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE<br />
SECOND AMENDMENT</a> by Glenn Reynolds. Will have to re-read later to verify. Busy now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Hardin</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208537</link>
		<dc:creator>John Hardin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208537</guid>
		<description>You need a preview button on your comment editor...

Looking the word up in &lt;a href=&quot;//books.google.com/books?id=lqsRAAAAIAAJ&amp;ots=4bAbIOZjJJ&amp;dq=18th%20century%20english%20dictionary&amp;pg=PA60&#8243;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of 1824 at pg. 60&lt;/a&gt; says:</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You need a preview button on your comment editor&#8230;</p>
<p>Looking the word up in <a href="//books.google.com/books?id=lqsRAAAAIAAJ&amp;ots=4bAbIOZjJJ&amp;dq=18th%20century%20english%20dictionary&amp;pg=PA60&#8243;" rel="nofollow">Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of 1824 at pg. 60</a> says:</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Hardin</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208536</link>
		<dc:creator>John Hardin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208536</guid>
		<description>Unc, did you &lt;em&gt;actually&lt;/em&gt; say this in comments over there:
&lt;blockquote&gt;A misconception is that keep and bear means to have and carry. It does not. &#039;Keep and bear&#039; is separate from &#039;wearing&#039;. &#039;keep and bear&#039; has been generally interpreted to mean to have and be able to train with or use.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I am amazed. Would you care to cite a &quot;general interpretation&quot; by some recognized authority on the 2nd Amendment and the founders&#039; intent (like David Hardy or David Young) that &quot;bear&quot; does &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; mean &quot;carry&quot;? 

Looking the word up in a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=lqsRAAAAIAAJ&amp;ots=4bAbIOZjJJ&amp;dq=18th%20century%20english%20dictionary&amp;pg=PA60&quot; rel=&quot;external&quot;&gt;Samuel Johnson&#039;s Dictionary of 1824 at pg. 60 says:
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;To BEAR&lt;/em&gt; i a pret Ae rc or bate part pass bore or born beonan Sax &lt;strong&gt;To carry as a burden&lt;/strong&gt; Isaiah &lt;strong&gt;To convey or carry&lt;/strong&gt; ...&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unc, did you <em>actually</em> say this in comments over there:</p>
<blockquote><p>A misconception is that keep and bear means to have and carry. It does not. &#8216;Keep and bear&#8217; is separate from &#8216;wearing&#8217;. &#8216;keep and bear&#8217; has been generally interpreted to mean to have and be able to train with or use.</p></blockquote>
<p>I am amazed. Would you care to cite a &#8220;general interpretation&#8221; by some recognized authority on the 2nd Amendment and the founders&#8217; intent (like David Hardy or David Young) that &#8220;bear&#8221; does <em>not</em> mean &#8220;carry&#8221;? </p>
<p>Looking the word up in a href=&#8221;http://books.google.com/books?id=lqsRAAAAIAAJ&amp;ots=4bAbIOZjJJ&amp;dq=18th%20century%20english%20dictionary&amp;pg=PA60&#8243; rel=&#8221;external&#8221;&gt;Samuel Johnson&#8217;s Dictionary of 1824 at pg. 60 says:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>To BEAR</em> i a pret Ae rc or bate part pass bore or born beonan Sax <strong>To carry as a burden</strong> Isaiah <strong>To convey or carry</strong> &#8230;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SayUncle</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208501</link>
		<dc:creator>SayUncle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208501</guid>
		<description>nra supports some restrictions. Obama supports them all. I also have said most americans don&#039;t know that the AWB doesn&#039;t cover machine guns.

&lt;blockquote&gt;The NRA is certainly the largest gun industry advocacy group&lt;/blockquote&gt;

You keep using that canard. The gun industry has it&#039;s own advocacy group. The NSSF.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nra supports some restrictions. Obama supports them all. I also have said most americans don&#8217;t know that the AWB doesn&#8217;t cover machine guns.</p>
<blockquote><p>The NRA is certainly the largest gun industry advocacy group</p></blockquote>
<p>You keep using that canard. The gun industry has it&#8217;s own advocacy group. The NSSF.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Braisted</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/10/10/you-keep-using-that-word-sarcastically/comment-page-1/#comment-208498</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Braisted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=19030#comment-208498</guid>
		<description>Well, most Americans do support some restrictions, and right or wrong, you pointed out on your own blog that a large majority of Americans supported things like the Assault Weapons Ban.  

The NRA is certainly the largest gun industry advocacy group, but not all of their members agree with their opposition to gun show reforms and other measures to control the flow of firearms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, most Americans do support some restrictions, and right or wrong, you pointed out on your own blog that a large majority of Americans supported things like the Assault Weapons Ban.  </p>
<p>The NRA is certainly the largest gun industry advocacy group, but not all of their members agree with their opposition to gun show reforms and other measures to control the flow of firearms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
