A Question for Rightwingers

[koshergrl]

more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.

Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."

The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.

The thread title states it's a question for rightwingers, which you apparently missed given your retarded statement that "nowhere did the OP infer" blah blah blah. Just admit you're an idiot and we can move on.


I don't see you doing that, since it seems it's your MO to pretend that uncomfortable truths don't exist or are "off topic".

Leftist loon.

 

[daws101]

Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."

The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.

The thread title states it's a question for rightwingers, which you apparently missed given your retarded statement that "nowhere did the OP infer" blah blah blah. Just admit you're an idiot and we can move on.


I don't see you doing that, since it seems it's your MO to pretend that uncomfortable truths don't exist or are "off topic".

Leftist loon.

my mo? been watching too many old cop movies have we?
when will you reveal an actual uncomfortable truth?

the uncomfortable truths posted by people with misfiring neurons like yourself always turn out to be fleeting and imaginary.

 

[koshergrl]

So do you belong to the 80 percent of Dem Underground who lives with mental illness on a daily basis?

 

[Abatis]

Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, . . . <snip>

Sigh . . .

Never mind.

That's what I thought you would say. To protect my guns I have to be watchful of all second amendments cases and be very knowledgeable on the second amendment.

That you consider your straight cut and paste as demonstrative of "knowledge" is what's dangerous to gun rights.

Lewis and Miller don't have any significance in this discussion and now you double down on it with this completely irrelevant plagiarism. That you don't know when it is appropriate to cite them shows you don't understand the first thing about the text you stole.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sigh . . .

Never mind.

That's what I thought you would say. To protect my guns I have to be watchful of all second amendments cases and be very knowledgeable on the second amendment.

That you consider your straight cut and paste as demonstrative of "knowledge" is what's dangerous to gun rights.

Lewis and Miller don't have any significance in this discussion and now you double down on it with this completely irrelevant plagiarism. That you don't know when it is appropriate to cite them shows you don't understand the first thing about the text you stole.

So? it proved you wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
talking points are a Conservative's only argument .
the statement "he can't think for himself" is from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't think the way I want them too is dangerous."
I've already given my opinion on the op.

And you use democratic talking points. WTF don't think the bullshit you use to defend obama is based on facts.

off topic

If it went off topic it because you placed it there with your post. So shut the fuck up you stupid fucking bitch.

 

[Abatis]

So? it proved you wrong.

In reply to the OP's question, "how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?" and her later comment (which I quoted), "Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one." . . . I said:

I skipped much of the middle pages here but I agree that it is a reasonable question especially as certain defenders of the individual mandate cited the Militia Act of 1792 as an instance of the federal government compelling private citizens to "buy" something, . . . to engage in commerce.

As I see it, without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self.

So, have at it, this I would like to hear . . .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So? it proved you wrong.

In reply to the OP's question, "how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?" and her later comment (which I quoted), "Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one." . . . I said:

I skipped much of the middle pages here but I agree that it is a reasonable question especially as certain defenders of the individual mandate cited the Militia Act of 1792 as an instance of the federal government compelling private citizens to "buy" something, . . . to engage in commerce.

As I see it, without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self.

So, have at it, this I would like to hear . . .

You don't need an active militia act The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjep1VCsyRk]Obama Seeks Congressional Ratification of UN Gun Control Treaty.avi - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Never heard so much stammering and around about answers.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emFOX9CbrEY]Obama&#39;s Nuance on Gun Control - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abatis]

You don't need an active militia act The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939

Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.

The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903. Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).

So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

And again, Lewis and Miller have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.

Can you point to any of the "second amendments cases" that you have been "watchful of" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?

Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?

 

[Samson]

I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.

Freedom is not forced.

anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon

ok. you're consistent. fair enough.

now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?

So, the actual point of the thread was to debate a woman's "right" to abortion using a mandated handgun?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't need an active militia act The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939

Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.

The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903. Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).

So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

And again, Lewis and Miller have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.

Can you point to any of the "second amendments cases" that you have been "watchful of" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?

Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?

And the 1980 supreme court ruling? What of that?

 

[Abatis]

You don't need an active militia act The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939

Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.

The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903. Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).

So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

And again, Lewis and Miller have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.

Can you point to any of the "second amendments cases" that you have been "watchful of" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?

Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?

And the 1980 supreme court ruling? What of that?

It is now your turn to rebut what I have said. I have stated that Lewis has nothing to offer in this discussion about whether, at a minimum, the individual can be compelled to posses a firearm and to the OP's premise that he can be mandated to carry it.

You're the expert . . . Wow me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.

The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903. Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).

So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

And again, Lewis and Miller have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.

Can you point to any of the "second amendments cases" that you have been "watchful of" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?

Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?

And the 1980 supreme court ruling? What of that?

It is now your turn to rebut what I have said. I have stated that Lewis has nothing to offer in this discussion about whether, at a minimum, the individual can be compelled to posses a firearm and to the OP's premise that he can be mandated to carry it.

You're the expert . . . Wow me.

Just because you say so does not make it so. You're arguing one thing that I am not arguing nor have attempt to argue for. Government mandating you buy a gun. The mandate was if you were part of the militia you would buy your own equipment. The 1939 ruling said weapons of the time.
I guess you could equate to a DL if you have a car you get insurance.

 

[Abatis]

You're arguing one thing that I am not arguing nor have attempt to argue for. Government mandating you buy a gun.

You can't be serious.

The mandate was if you were part of the militia you would buy your own equipment.

No shit Sherlock and that limited mandate (+/-20% of the general population) has not existed since 1903.

And, to repeat my first post in this thread one more time: "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

That's the ONLY thing I said in this thread until you showed up with your Lewis and Miller idiocy, "proving me wrong" LOL.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're arguing one thing that I am not arguing nor have attempt to argue for. Government mandating you buy a gun.

You can't be serious.

The mandate was if you were part of the militia you would buy your own equipment.

No shit Sherlock and that limited mandate (+/-20% of the general population) has not existed since 1903.

And, to repeat my first post in this thread one more time: "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

That's the ONLY thing I said in this thread until you showed up with your Lewis and Miller idiocy, "proving me wrong" LOL.

No shit Sherlock and that limited mandate (+/-20% of the general population) has not existed since 1903.

Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
1939 and 1980

 

[Abatis]

Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
1939 and 1980

You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
1939 and 1980

You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.

How the fuck so dumb ass? Explain yourself? We've had court rulings since 1903 that said the only gun protected by the second amendment are those of military grade weapons and would only be used by the military, and they would be bought by people who were part of the militia.
And as we all know the militia is the American citizen.

 

[Abatis]

Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
1939 and 1980

You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.

How the fuck so dumb ass? Explain yourself? We've had court rulings since 1903 that said the only gun protected by the second amendment are those of military grade weapons and would only be used by the military, and they would be bought by people who were part of the militia.
And as we all know the militia is the American citizen.

And nothing changes . . . Not a syllable of anything you have written in reply to me has anything to do with what I said. You are a constitutional dyslexic, not a scholar and as a watchdog, you only bark at imagined intrusion . . . Worse than useless..