What is a Militia?

[lazs2]

yep.. he uses a couple of lefty sites and doesn't give them credit.

I believe that the sc will do as they should and look at what the founders intended.  there is nothing to say that the peoples right could be regulated based on what the feds or states felt was a milita.

No one but him and arlo and some liberal lawyers think that the second is the right of the government to arm itself.

lazs

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
Everytime I see an Arlo post my knee jerks. So far I've kicked the dog, my wife and the coffee table numerous times.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
No one but him and arlo and some liberal lawyers think that the second is the right of the government to arm itself.
 

You don't know what I think. You're too busy impressing me with what you do.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
No.. the second just says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because we will always need to fight tyranny and an armed populace is always best for that..

from the government being cautious about stepping on rights to japan not even thinking about invasion against an armed populace to burglars in the US being more afraid of armed citizens than even cops to concealed carry making stopping assaults on people...

all forms of tyranny against the individual and the state.

lazs

Fear and paranoia, man. Just let go. Relax, you still can legally own guns. You're just not getting how I'm not against that one bit, are ya?

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
Jeez, Bingo;

You should at least put quotes around the stuff you borrow to substitute for your own input.

For any who care, Bingo clipped that first part from:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment.htm

and the second part from:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/i/2ndamendment_2.htm

Guess I am not up with the rules, Im sure it wasnt hard for you to tell I did not write it. but at least you looked something up
Good Boy!

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by lazs2
yep.. he uses a couple of lefty sites and doesn't give them credit.

I believe that the sc will do as they should and look at what the founders intended.  there is nothing to say that the peoples right could be regulated based on what the feds or states felt was a milita.

No one but him and arlo and some liberal lawyers think that the second is the right of the government to arm itself.

lazs

your so smart laz you to have lookitupitis Proved wrong umpteen times still hang on to your little rock.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo
It is my greatest hope that Toad has the same reactions I have when I see a post of his. When I see him post my knee jerks. So far I've kicked the dog, my wife and the coffee table numerous times. I hope he's suffering as much as I am. Then my efforts will be worth the pain.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Bingolong
at least you looked something up
 

Trying to set a good example for you but I see you're still not following it.

Don't be afraid to do some research; you'll probably be able to enjoy particpating in the discussions in a meaningful way if you do.

[bustr]

Originally posted by Toad


Overall, it looks like when pressed for a real argument you can't really muster one. When the wrongness and obviousness of your attitude and claim is challenged, you're too proud to back off.

[/B]

So is this why none of the scholars in this thread attempted to answer the questions in my last post? And preferably without cutting and pasting from others biased published ideological positions.

Better yet I don't understand why the posters against the 2nd amendmant aren't willing to speak in plain language and state they don't want anyone to have guns but the government because they are afraid of the .01% chance they might or someone they know might be killed or injured over the span of their lifetime. And this concern to them out weighs any law or original human right other than their own personal safety.

The government is always interested in gaining more control of it's monitary source and their activities. Individual human beings must first filter concepts through their own feelings, fear of personal death and injury historicly being one that has caused one group to do anything necessary to control the activities of another how ever unjust the focus even in the face of the targeted activity being lawful.

Anyone willing to address this posting?

[Bingolong]

Originally posted by Toad
Trying to set a good example for you but I see you're still not following it.

Don't be afraid to do some research; you'll probably be able to enjoy particpating in the discussions in a meaningful way if you do.

Here is some research for ya I do not know if gallup is leftie or not though sure you will let me know.  


Hows the minority?

make sure I get my reference in to give the folks credit for public knowledge on the internet for the intardnetlets.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx


Quite a few of you questions answered here laz

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm not all that imaginative. I'll just repeat what Arlo makes fun of me with back t him and kick more.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo
If I had any imagination at all, I'd use it to actually participate in discussions and exchanges of ideas. Instead, I'll just spam threads with meaningless, vapid comments.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Toad
If I was capable of looking past my own two inch ego I could tell when someone does more than make fun of me and get over it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Arlo

Someday I may dare to venture out into a real discussion. Right now though, my feminine side is far to fragile to countenance rejection.
 

[Arlo]

Exemplify, Toad. I'll gladly follow your lead. Bandage your bruises. Shelve that ego. Dis-cuss away. If you can demand it ..... you can do it.