Welcome To The Wild West???
POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 8 of 13
Quote:Much as you, I will respond to people in the way they address me.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...
Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!
Anyway:
Quote:No, their opinion has more consequences, but it doesn't necessarily make it better sourced or supported. Unless you fall easily for appeals to authority, it doesn't mean their opinion is 'better', perhaps more 'important', but not 'better'.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Only it's not "just as good" - unless you happen to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Your opinion is just your opinion - their opinion is essentially the law.
Quote:No, but as I said I was willing to give back up for my interpretation if someone asked. No one did.
And you've provided zero evidence that reinforces your opinion.
Quote:I'll fall back on something Frem provided earlier, which indicates that what they meant by 'Militia' was a regulated body, with officers and under the command of the state government. Do you want me to re-post it? The words in Frems post indicate that the Militia the writer intended wasn't just a bunch of guys with guns, it was the formal entity I was talking about, doesn't it?
Okay, I have signed up to be "called forth" as part of the militia. When I turned 18, I had to sign up for Selective Service - commonly known as the draft, but also useful in calling up the militia should Congress deem it necessary. And I've been trained in the use and care of firearms, and have no legal reasons why I can't own or possess said firearms. So I *am* in the militia, and I *am* well-regulated (disciplined and trained in the use of firearms).
Quote:They say it wasn't linked, when clearly it was. CLEARLY, since it's in the same sentence, and the right to keep and bear arms was integral to the up keep of the militia.
YOU say "they ignored half the Amendment" - but clearly, they didn't ignore it; they argued it quite vociferously.
Quote:No, what I said was that the supreme court and it's decision was irrelevant to what I was saying, I'm sorry if you didn't like your appeal to authority being challenged. You seem to have pigeon-holed me and what I'm saying in a convenient box, which is obviously why you think so much of this is relevant to what I'm saying, but it really isn't. My only point was that in the 1700's the phrases "well regulated militia" and "to bear arms" had meanings different to what everyone has been saying, or to how they're now interpreted. You're now demanding I back up assertions I never made, and throwing a contemporary interpretation at me. Yeah, I think that's irrelevant, I'm not talking about the law or interpretation now, I'm talking then. I'm making no statement about how things should be now, nor how it should be codified in law now.
So far, you've come up with no better argument against it than, "But that's not the way I feel, so that settles it. Anything else is irrelevant."
So I have two cases to make, one the meaning of the term well regulated militia, and the other is the meaning of the phrase "to bear arms".
To bear arms is easy, going off the congress records (I can't seem to get direct links to work, so I'll have to beg indulgence to run a search on the site until I can find a better solution - http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/browse/):
Excerpt from Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 4 May 16, 1776 - August 15, 1776
Joseph Hewes to James Iredell
Quote:Using the term "bear arms" to indicate only fifty men from three regiments are fit for military service.
Our whole army are retreated to the Isle a Noix a little on this side St. Johns, 1500 of them have the Small Pox, out of three Regiments not more than fifty able to bear Arms, we hope to keep possession of the Lakes.
Excerpt from the Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1804-1807
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1806.
Quote:
Whereas the commanders of British armed vessels have impressed many AmericanNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed, that it is, Mike...
One OTHER point that most folk never seem to comprehend is that there was the "Standing Army" present in our current society, the very thing the Founders most feared as the primary danger to Liberty is NOT in fact, the Armed Forces of the United States, although that case can certainly be made...
It's another "Standing Army" that you would recognize as....
The Police.
From AntiFederalist #29.
As this government will not enjoy the confidence of the people, but be executed by force, it will be a very expensive and burdensome government. The standing army must be numerous, and as a further support, it wilt be the policy of this government to multiply officers in every department; judges, collectors, tax-gatherers, excisemen and the whole host of revenue officers, will swarm over the land, devouring the hard earnings of the industrious like the locusts of old, impoverishing and desolating all before them. . . .
See, back then there really wasn't so much an organized full-time law enforcement beyond the occasional Sheriff who would deputise members of the community at need - and there were good reasons for that, imagine such a Sheriff trying to convince the neighbors of the local priest to kick in his door for a no-knock raid at 3am based on info obtained from a vagrant caught stealing who's only hoping to catch a break by fingering someone at random and hoping the raid comes up with something ?
In the context of the argument, the Police as a whole, and all those assholes of the BATFE, DEA, and suchlike ARE the very "Standing Army" the Founders were convinced would be the end of us, because it is by THEIR power that the whims of our runaway Government is thrust upon us by force of arms rather than the consent of the governed.
And consider the argument previously posted that the general population should completely outgun any "Standing Army" as a bulwark against tyranny in light of the legal blockade of bullshit hoops one has to jump through to possess a weapon at all, and the eagerness with which the Police confiscate them - contrasted by the Police having assault rifles, APC's and grenade launchers.
And now their damn checkpoint charlie routine for bullshit fishing expeditions under the guise of excuse of the week, seatbelts, safety checks, what have you, but mostly just bullshit to give them an excuse to piss on the Fourth Amendment and lord over us like some kind of social upper class - not to mention the fact that they behave just like any other street gang once you strip the excuses and bullshit off.
I submit to you that THEY are the "Standing Army" that we're supposed to be armed better than, and here we are on the other end, at the very fucking pass AntiFederalist #29 describes.
For more information you might wanna read this abstract, presented by -
Roger Isaac Roots, J.D., M.C.J
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
To which my answer is not just no, but HELL no.
I used to be less vociferous about that, but watching them gleefully flock to New Orleans from as far away as Washington State to forcibly disarm people of the means to protect themselves not only against rioters and looters, but also against THEM, and in many cases forcibly evict folk from their own homes in lieu of any actual danger once they were disarmed, that did it for me.
It's those goons in blue the Founders were afraid of, not the ones in camo.
And most folk have never for a minute even pondered this, believe it.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
In contrast your opinion is backed by the fact that you're an ignorant prick and a troll, so at least mine is more substantial than yours, eh. Your lack of a reproductive organ isn't my concern, you unbelievably stupid piece of worthless shit.
But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And here we go down the "civility" road again...
Hey - and this time I wasn't involved!!
Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.
Besides, most of what he's doing is either quoting or paraphrasing Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Neither did I. I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.
Originally posted by Geezer:
But I never said my opinion matters. Just the Supreme Court's. Feel perfectly free to come over here and violate one of their rulings any time, and maybe you'll find out who's opinions have the most force.
In that case though, why do you continue to post here? Your opinion doesn't matter, why waste our time by voicing it? Why not just post the link to the supreme court's website with every reply? Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?
As for the supreme court, they can come over here and try to force their rulings on me any time they like, to see how much their opinion matters to me
.Quote:Funny, coming from the guy who never gets off his high horse, and never says anything that isn't bratty and schoolboy-ish. ahh, Geezer, the hypocritical troll, will you ever change?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Aww. You know when Cit gets on his high horse it's fun to poke him a little bit and see him devolve into a bratty schoolboy.
But anyway, thank you for admitting that you act like a troll
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed. 1st amendment doesn't apply to insulting people. Which you seem to attack my mother who is dead everytime you disagree. I've been waiting to slam you. You showed your insecurity again with the mother attacks. So appologize because I will stay on you. Stop trying to be smart cause your not. Learn something thats not what someone told you.
"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I just said my opinion is as good as anyone else's.
Better than people who've spent their entire career studying the law and its interpretation? Looks like I was right about the ego part.
Quote:
Take your meaningless opinion and put it in the orifice you conduct discourse through perhaps?
...and the supercilious part, with a bit of the bratty schoolboy thrown in.
Sad little king of a sad little hill.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kwicko, your a dirty mouth 15 year old who still has plastic on his bed.
Nice try. Care to guess again? "Your" wrong on all counts.
Quote:
I've been waiting to slam you. So appologize because I will stay on you.
And I'm still waiting for you to try. You want an apology because you attacked me personally? That's something that's just never going to happen. You're going to stay on me, huh? Wow. I'm shaking.
Quote:
Stop trying to be smart cause your not.
I'd give you a "D-minus" on that one.
Quote:
Learn something thats not what someone told you.
How about you learn English first?
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock
The Myrmidons were an ancient nation of very brave and skilled warriors as described in Homer's Iliad, and were commanded by Achilles. - Wikipedia
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Posted as MSB again, Yeah, I'm a tool.
____________________________________________
Love doesn't make the world go 'round; love is what makes the ride worthwhile.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's cool Cit, I was using it from a post over at the 76th site. I did think it to be a correct statement to point out that many more officers (constables?) were being trained to effectively deploy small arms such as the MP5. I am actually glad that they are. We have too many people in the world trying to make the world a worse place than it already is. I only hope for the sake of the great people of the UK they will not have to rely on an armed constabulary to keep the peace. It is a travesty for the children of the world to not feel safe enough to walk down the street without armed protection. I can do nothing but commend the UK for making an incredible effort to keep that hope alive.
So ends my short visit to RWED. Good hearin' from y'all.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Being an artist means not having to avert one's eyes.
-Akira Kurosawa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME