Then you need to get a life, bunky. I don't waste any time or effort when you and your compadres create your GOP boot licking threads. Maybe you should see a shrink about following someone around you continuously claim is not worth the time or effort.
The OP stands valid....your denial non-withstanding. Carry on.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
really?....because I'm pretty sure you have responded to every single post I have made to this thread at least once......and I posted every single one of them just to make you respond to it.......that's a whole lot of your wasted time and effort given the fact I don't actually pay any attention to what you have to say.........
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Taichiliberal (02-16-2020)
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Learn to read carefully and comprehensively, bunky. I specifically cites THREADS created, NOT the individual posts YOU put on THE THREAD I CREATED. I swear I sometimes can't believe you're that dumb to think you can lie on a printed medium that can easily be checked. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...15#post3486015
I take you out of the IA bin every so often since you continuously post on my threads. But you have yet to evolve from the Post Modern Fool you've been all these years. So back in you go, bunky. You'll follow me around like a bitch in heat, but to no avail. Adios
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Taichiliberal (02-16-2020)
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
Truth Detector (02-20-2020)
Keep in mind that people have the right to keep and bear arms for private self defense even if they are not a member of a militia.
However, militiamen do have the right to have all sorts of fun weapons like machine guns and bazookas, so if you want to bring back the militia for people to join if they choose to do so, I'm all for that.
That depends.
The government is only allowed to pass laws that impact a fundamental right if the laws can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.
So if the type of weapon that he wants is so benign that there is no compelling government interest in preventing him from having it, then he does in fact have the right to have that type of weapon.
On the other hand, if the type of weapon that he wants is so dangerous that the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in preventing him from having it, then the government has the authority to step in and pass laws.
State guards aren't real militias unless they are allowed to have military weapons.
Let me know when state guards start carrying military weapons.
That doesn't change the fact that Alexander Hamilton's usage of the term "well regulated militia" in the Federalist Papers makes it very clear that the term means a militia that is well trained and well equipped.
The Second Amendment guarantees that militiamen can have adequate military weapons even if their rules say otherwise.
I'm sure that militias if they existed today would have rules.
I don't see what the rules would have to do with the Second Amendment however, except for cases when the Second Amendment overturns those rules.
Keep in mind that people have the right to have guns for private self defense even if they're not members of a militia.
The first and last half of the Second Amendment do two separate things.
The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia.
The second half of the Second Amendment protects the preexisting right of people to keep and bear arms.
The Federalist Papers make it clear that the term "well regulated militia" means a militia that is well trained and well equipped.
That depends on whether the government can justify a gun law as serving a compelling government interest.
If the government cannot justify a gun law as serving a compelling government interest, then that gun law is unconstitutional.
It is only the gun laws that can be justified as serving a compelling government interest that pass constitutional muster.
It is reasonable for the NRA to oppose unconstitutional gun laws.
Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.
This is why I call him the Post Modern Fool....I point out that I don't follow his threads because he's an right wing idiot. Yet he consistently comments on mine, and confuses my periodic responses as equal to his obsession. He just doesn't get it....especially when this system tells you when you're on IA in attempting to post a response on another's thread. I can't tell you how many pages this dunce has filled some of my threads with This message is hidden because PostmodernProphet is on your ignore list. Oh well, life goes on.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
1. Your first sentence is a moot point that is not in contention. As to your second sentence, please document any state militia regulations that allow militia members to have the type of weaponry your describe. If you can't, then you are wrong.
2. Wrong. The gov't can only pass laws at the behest of the people "for the general welfare". This is done through representation and majority vote. A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. This is why some yahoo can't have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on his roof "for protection", but can have semi-auto pistols and long guns inside the house.
3. there are state militias and there is the National Guard, both clearly defined by law federal and state. "state guard" is your neologism, which is not applicable here.
4. See #3.
5. Again, what Hamilton wrote in his personal papers and what he signed off on vary. You want his papers to be directly interpreted as law, then write your congressman and senator (no sarcasm or cynicism intented).
6. Again, your personal interpretation based on the myopia of what weaponry was originally available to militias in the 1700's. As I documented and pointed out, even then you had regulations in the new states. Weaponry evolved, laws changed, but NOTHING as to what you assert. A matter of fact, a matter of history.
7. They do exists, as I've documented. That they don't fit your personal interpretation is irrelevant.
8. Again, a moot point that is NOT the focus of the discussion here.
9. Again, you keep trying to insert your personal interpretation, which requires the treating a part of a comprehensive paragraph as a non-addendum, which is absurd.
10. See #5. Your repetition won't change historical fact and the logic derived from this fact.
11. Projecting various "what if" scenarios is meaningless, as the historical legal precedents as is contradicts your wants, as I've pointed out several times now.
12. The NRA has become a shill for gun manufacturers selling their product. That the leaderships opposes it's own membership regarding extensive background checks should tell you that.
13. Only from a myopic, predisposed viewpoint. Otherwise, the following points to the contrary:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...ks-saves-lives
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/111201...ional-evidence
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Bookmarks