The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Hacker15e said:
Seriously, the blatant hypocrisy of this kind of statement is astounding.

Personally, I don't care if you have a particular interpretation of the constitution or of the Framers intent; if you have an angle that you can back up with some kind of logical argument or evidence, then by all means go for it...but your constant 'Constitutional scholar' ad-hominem mockery when others present such arguments, and then turning around and supporting your argument by stating your personal interpretation of what the Framers meant is asinine.
Click to expand...

Big difference here is I know it is my personal interpretation, I also know the Supreme Court doesn't see it the way I see it. Others on this thread think they would be able to defend the 2nd Amendment in front of the Supreme Court.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Especially when his personal interpretation is directly in contravention with what a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America think.
Click to expand...

I am well aware my personal interpretation is in contravention with what the majority of the Supreme Court Justices. Don't see what the big deal is with that?
 
"Common sense" as defined by who Seggy? You? Congress (went down, btw)?

Short answer Seggy - and I mean this sincerely - and I believe that ATN_Pilot and the rest would agree: We like the second amendment because it helps insure that the seggy's of the world don't have undue influence in our lives. Period. That is why the 2nd amendment is essential.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Okay, I am breaking my silence for this. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution, commonly called the Bill of Rights, specifically enumerated things the government could not take away from the people. But in the case of firearms, they really meant the Congress should pass no law infringing on the right to bear arms upon.... the government?

I'm pretty sure that @JayAre, @jhugz, and @WacoFan would be exactly the militia they had in mind.
Click to expand...

Best post yet
 
Seggy said:
...... The JC Gun Militia is not what the Founders meant. How would the JC Gun Militia figure out the government was infringing on their rights when WacoFan and ATN_Pilot can't even agree on simple political policy such as good health care for the citizens?
Click to expand...

Come on Mark you're smarter than that....If you can't make an argument without resorting to petty name-calling you should probably hit the backspace and rethink the entire point....

I usually stay out of the political 'mess' threads for the simple reason if people dont agree you're not gonna change their mind. My politics are just that, my politics. I cant change ones mind and frankly don't care to....Other times people are arguing for the sake of arguing whether they agree with the point or not.

BTW, what constitutes being a member of 'the militia'? Would a a brand new CCW permit holder make the cut? Or would it just be someone that doesnt agree with your view of guns...?
 
I've determined that it's a waste of time to even discuss this with the Squatch. His interpretation of what the Founders meant by the 2nd Amendment is decimated by the Founders' own quotes, many of which have been posted in this very thread. He skips right on by them or simply pretends to have not read them. So, we're wasting our time. Just ignore the troll and he'll go away. Besides, his side already lost. Let him stew in that for a while.
 
JEP said:
Come on Mark you're smarter than that....If you can't make an argument without resorting to petty name-calling you should probably hit the backspace and rethink the entire point....
Click to expand...

I've been called FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR worse in this thread.


BTW, what constitutes being a member of 'the militia'? Would a a brand new CCW permit holder make the cut? Or would it just be someone that doesnt agree with your view of guns...?
Click to expand...

My remark was tongue-in-cheek.
 
Seggy said:
But you liked that post???

:confused:
Click to expand...

And......? I am quite sure i was just as tongue and cheek as your previous post.... If I recall you did graduate from Rutgers and I would assume their academic standards are well regarded in some circles. So for Waco to ask for a source was what a saw as being funny.... Take it as a compliment....

Take note of your previous reply to me about being called faaaaaaaaar worse. You will hear that line of thinking 10+ years down the road and realize how silly it sounds...

But seriously regardless of how I or anyone else view your thoughts who gives a rip. You feel the way you do and speak to it....Do i or others agree? Who cares...?

I am not running for office and dont ever plan to....So I dont need to change anyones mind. That is the main reason I don't delve into the political threads with any seriousness....
 
JEP, The Militia Act of 1903 defines every male between 18 and 45 as a member of the unorganized militia, but that doesn't have anything to do with who can buy and own weapons since old people and girls can still buy them.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
JEP, The Militia Act of 1903 defines every male between 18 and 45 as a member of the unorganized militia, but that doesn't have anything to do with who can buy and own weapons since old people and girls can still buy them.
Click to expand...

Sure about that?

The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), also known as the Dick Act, was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish–American War of 1898, after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. The act formulated the concept of the National Guard and also ensured that all state military forces were simultaneously dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. This last measure was to prevent state governors from using National Guard forces as "private armies", in many ways as had been done in the American Civil War and to ensure that the President could not, at any time, mobilize state military forces into the federal armed forces.
Click to expand...

Says nothing about conscription.

You were probably talking about the Second Militia Act of 1792 which states...

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
Click to expand...

Which relates to my point of the 'Constitutional Scholars' in this thread and the absolution in which they talk.

See that Hacker15e?
 
Seggy said:
Sure about that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I actually am sure of that.

Militia Act of 1903 said:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist
of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories,
and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign
birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more
than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided
into two classes-the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard.
of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such
other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective
States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve
Militia.
Click to expand...


Which relates to my point of the 'Constitutional Scholars' in this thread and the absolution in which they talk.

See that Hacker15e?
Click to expand...
It certainly does, but it doesn't much reflect so well on you who only has a Wikipedia grasp on the topic at hand.
 
Seggy said:
So then the Second Militia Act of 1792 was just there for poos and giggles? I don't think so...
Click to expand...
Are you being intentionally (trolly) stupid or do you just not have any idea how the legislative branch works? Here is a quote from Wikipedia, which appears to be your only source on this subject:

These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top