Posted on 11/03/2005 2:24:08 PM PST by inquest
But not a bong and a lid..
So you imagine, ignoring our Constitutional freedoms.
The "Constitutional freedom" of dope. You find that in an emanation of a penumbra or the confusion of a bong?
But not a bong and a lid..
So you imagine, ignoring our Constitutional freedoms.
The "Constitutional freedom" of dope.
But moj, you do have the freedom to self medicate/intoxicate yourself, -- as it's evident you do - in some of your more creative posts.
You find that in an emanation of a penumbra or the confusion of a bong?
Nah, try reading the 9th.. It's so short even you won't get confused.
No, I mean the warship was legally, privately owned PRIOR to Madison's Letter of Marque. The letter was good "during the pleasure of the President" and not after, but the warship would still be legally, privately owned if the letter were revoked. The warship could be operated, it could be sold, it could be possessed by anyone with the money to buy it.
You commented that it carried (for a time) a federal Letter of Marque, but that's pretty irrelevant, unless you can explain the relevance. You didn't need such a letter to own a warship equipped with cannons. You just needed it if your privately owned warship were hired by the US government.
It was a warship by virtue of the Letter of Marque. But if cannons make a ship into a warship, you can own one even today.
I bet you thought that you had finally made a point.
The Random House Dictionary that I have in front of me defines a warship as "a ship built or armed for combat purposes". The definition says nothing about whether it's authorized for use in combat.
I bet you thought that you had finally made a point.
Projection, again.
Cute cartoon. -- Do you think that you've finally made a point?
And it required the Letter of Marque to lawfully engage in combat.
But if cannons make a ship into a warship, you can own one even today.
A point that you tried to slink past.
Yep. He was begging the existence of a dope clause in the 9th Amendment.
The faith of a bureucrat in the power of paperwork.
But if cannons make a ship into a warship, you can own one even today.
A point that you tried to slink past.
Just like your comrades.
No one's denied that. Your unsupported falsehood was that it required a letter of marque in order for it to even be a warship.
But if cannons make a ship into a warship, you can own one even today.
So? No one denied that either. Do you have any kind of point to make at all?
Then the "point" has no merit.
As usual.
Not to you, of course, because it's not convenient to whatever strawman you're trying to build.
Not to anybody.
"Hey, we used to be able to own ships and cannons!"
Guess what? We still can.
Which, of course, doesn't detract from the point being made in the slightest. It only detracts from your desperate mischaracterization of the discussion.
Yep. Can't subtract from nothing.
But you can't show where I've "tried to slink past", can you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.