Author Topic: What is a Militia? (Read 20712 times)

Arlo · « **Reply #150 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:17:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you can not offend me, i have a great tolerance for mentally disadvantaged people.

You're forced to. Gotta live with yourself, afterall.

Tigeress · « **Reply #151 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:23:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tigeress
Not wanting to spoil anyone's joyful smacksmanship, but just to set the record straight, you in favor of the Second Amendment, as written?

A yes or a no or an eloquent oration with copious innuendo works!

TIGERESS

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Yes.

To be followed by copius "innuendo":

Of course. The issue is interpretation. Some people want it to mean one thing. Some people want it to mean another. Others realize the world's changed and that the constitution is amendable .... for that very reason. What I'm against is bogus reasoning:

1. The framers of the constitution specifically penned it to support my "God given" right to own a tank.

2. I need a fully automatic belt-fed heavy machinegun to protect me and mine from criminals and the government.

Such rationalizing Rambos could just tell me they got more money than sense, enjoy dangerous toys and leave it at that and I'd probably cheer `em on and wish `em luck.

That's what I thought!!!

The Smack-War may now resume!

TIGERESS

lazs2 · « **Reply #152 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:23:27 PM »

I am not getting your point at all. You seem to be saying that any threat to liberty that is not a new threat is ok?

I think what is happening here is that the courts need to rule on this stuff.. I believe that the amendment has been bent to the point of breaking and that some of these ridiculous laws need to be rolled back.

As I have said about the car and license thing.. there are absolutely no restrictions... none.. on private vehicles on private property. The only time the restrictions come into play is to grab money and to insure safety on public roads.

safety for firearms is not rocket science... far simpler than operating 2 tons of machinery hurtling down the road at others at 70 mph. Of the two.. guns or cars.. cars are not only far more dangerous but require far more training to operate safely.

For guns.. a half a dozen simple rules learned will suffice. they are not difficult and require little or no skill to learn and observe. so, safety is not a factor.

checking to see if a person is sane enough or has citizen rights to own them takes only an hour or so.

unlike cars.. guns don't wear out roads or take up space in town.. they don't require maintenance that keep them safe to operate in any real way. and.. unlike cars... unless you are simply careless... they are no danger anyone. The reason we ignore the guns and cars thing is because there is no real comparison.

Do you wish to continue to compare guns and cars? maybe guns and free speech? no? how bout other rights?

The fact that civil rights for negros were ignored and stepped on for a long time does not mean that it was just and that the jim crow laws should not be rolled back.

lazs

john9001 · « **Reply #153 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:25:42 PM »

arlo, i was going to say "you mentally disadvantaged people", but i thought it would look like a attack on you personally so i edited it to remove the "you" knowing that you would try to turn it back on me, as you did.

you think you are clever, but you come across as a fool.

lazs2 · « **Reply #154 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:30:34 PM »

tigress he will not say.. he is afraid he will be dismissed if he says what he really thinks...

look at the exaggeration... "tanks" the framers did indeed see the difference between arms and ordinance. they had rockets and bombs and cannon.. those were not protected.

So what small arms would arlo ban? I don't think there is a gun in the world that he could not find a reason to ban. I don't think there is a registration or restriction for possesion that would be too onerous for him.

I don't believe that he thinks the second is an individual right and that therefore it can be infringed.. I think it obvious that he thinks the constitution is a flexible document that old hippies like himself can interpret to mean anything he wants. that it is a "suggestion" to be tempered by whatever is the current whim and fad.

lazs

Arlo · « **Reply #155 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:32:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I am not getting your point at all. You seem to be saying that any threat to liberty that is not a new threat is ok?

You're working too hard to miss the point. No, I seem to be saying it's neither a threat nor new.

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

Do you wish to continue to compare guns and cars? maybe guns and free speech? no? how bout other rights?

The fact that civil rights for negros were ignored and stepped on for a long time does not mean that it was just and that the jim crow laws should not be rolled back.

Your call. Your stretch. Please bear in mind, the harder one works at rationalizing a case, the easier it usually is to shoot it full of holes (ptp).

Arlo · « **Reply #156 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:35:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
arlo, i was going to say "you mentally disadvantaged people", but i thought it would look like a attack on you personally so i edited it to remove the "you" knowing that you would try to turn it back on me, as you did.

you think you are clever, but you come across as a fool.

Well damn, you sure got me there! Woohoo! Carry on, kid.

(Just remember, you took the opportunity to jump into the deep end to wrassle. You shoulda stopped to remember if you could swim first.)

Arlo · « **Reply #157 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:38:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
tigress he will not say.. he is afraid he will be dismissed if he says what he really thinks...

look at the exaggeration... "tanks" the framers did indeed see the difference between arms and ordinance. they had rockets and bombs and cannon.. those were not protected.

So what small arms would arlo ban? I don't think there is a gun in the world that he could not find a reason to ban. I don't think there is a registration or restriction for possesion that would be too onerous for him.

I don't believe that he thinks the second is an individual right and that therefore it can be infringed.. I think it obvious that he thinks the constitution is a flexible document that old hippies like himself can interpret to mean anything he wants. that it is a "suggestion" to be tempered by whatever is the current whim and fad.

lazs

Arlo has never said he would ban any small arm. I understand you feel threatened and all but you're projecting more "boogyman" on me than is there, chicken Lazzle.

john9001 · « **Reply #158 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:46:58 PM »

arlo like Internet, arlo having fun.

Arlo · « **Reply #159 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:50:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
arlo like Internet, arlo having fun.

You're getting there. And what, pray tell, are you doing right now?

john9001 · « **Reply #160 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:54:23 PM »

watching the DIY channel.

Bingolong · « **Reply #161 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:54:30 PM »

Laz, I have not called you Righty or "jerk off" as the case maybe.

I am staying out of the personnel side of this. I have said I am for the 2nd amendment though. I am curious why does it make a difference to you from the law side of this argument? Why does where I live make any difference? Last, why do you feel the need to label people?

Do you need help with a proper argument? You seem very intelligent! Argue your case to the SC not to me. To me you're just sitting there whining and calling me names. I have laid out a very light dusting off a possible areas where an argument could be made, not my beliefs. I could have picked the other side of the argument as well, I just did not.

I do believe the timing of this case is not a coincidence.

Arlo · « **Reply #162 on:** November 24, 2007, 05:55:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
watching the DIY channel.

Did you manage to do it yourself?

Xargos · « **Reply #163 on:** November 24, 2007, 10:48:02 PM »

Ever notice how the people who are most willing to raise your taxes are also the ones most opposed to the Second Amendment? Criminal never want their victims to be able to defend themselves.

Arlo · « **Reply #164 on:** November 24, 2007, 11:07:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Xargos
Ever notice how the people who are most willing to raise your taxes are also the ones most opposed to the Second Amendment? Criminal never want their victims to be able to defend themselves.

Freud would have a field day here.

Xargos, where does the funding for the war come from? Which taxes really represent the war tax? And with that much investment couldn't the government give every adult in the nation a free M-16 along with a monthly clip of ammo and have quite a bit left over? Wait a sec ....

$586.00 a rifle ....

Age structure: (2007 est.)

0–19 years: 27.4% (male 42,667,761; female 40,328,895)
20–64 years: 60.1% (male 89,881,041; female 90,813,578)
65 years and over: 12.6% (male 15,858,477; female 21,991,195)

Leaving out 19 years of age and younger .... round up to 230 million souls ....

Almost 135 billion ... for the rifles, anyhow.

Cost of Iraq war to date: 471 billion and counting.

Hell, Halliburton pizzed off more than the cost of arming the entire citizenry with "the modern day equivilant of muskets."

Granted, I haven't taken into account felons or the mentally disabled.

I could see a tax. But who gets their M-16 first? How does one apply? Is there a seperate tax for body armor? Do public schools make bootcamp mandatory?