The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

we could be practical;

That would be a first.

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

How do you get him to it?

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire

How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.

"runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,

and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.

you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.

nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.

you say that, but offer no superior solution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.

It should be noted that not even in the final days of Nazi Germany did they press into service men such as the one you pictured.
Butt then, you're talking to a troll, so...

 

[Auld Phart]

YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

we could be practical;

That would be a first.

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

How do you get him to it?

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire

How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.

"runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,

and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.

you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.

nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.

you say that, but offer no superior solution.

superior solution?

Don't, as they used to say, hire the halt and the lame.

There was a reason they created the age and physical guidelines in 1783, and 1903.

They wanted able bodied men in their prime defending the country.

 

[danielpalos]

you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.

It should be noted that not even in the final days of Nazi Germany did they press into service men such as the one you pictured.
Butt then, you're talking to a troll, so...

We have no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.

besides, volunteers could provide better coverage, if it is really really serious.

 

[danielpalos]

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​

there could be more depending on the situation.

we could be practical;

That would be a first.

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

How do you get him to it?

a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire

How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.

"runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,

and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.

you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.

nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.

you say that, but offer no superior solution.

superior solution?

Don't, as they used to say, hire the halt and the lame.

There was a reason they created the age and physical guidelines in 1783, and 1903.

They wanted able bodied men in their prime defending the country.

What if you don't have a choice; leadership is the last thing that should go.

 

[hadit]

Try common sense.

this guy:

is useless to a militia.

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

 

[danielpalos]

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

 

[hadit]

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

And you don't understand the words you use.

 

[danielpalos]

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

And you don't understand the words you use.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

 

[hadit]

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

And you don't understand the words you use.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.

 

[danielpalos]

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

And you don't understand the words you use.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.

echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.

 

[hadit]

Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

And you don't understand the words you use.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.

echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.

Good start. How's it going so far?

 

[Rigby5]

Try common sense.

this guy:

is useless to a militia.

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Actually, the old guy in the wheel chair is exactly who needs to be a member of the armed militia.
Clearly he could not defend himself or his home unarmed.
And he has the right to defend himself and his home.
And that is the primary goal of the militia, defense of individual rights.
Defense of municipality, state, or country, come later and are not the primary mission of the armed militia.

 

[Rigby5]

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.


It fails logically.

.

Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.

only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.

When will you learn that the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.

You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.

And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.

A common misperception by the right wing; wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.

Wrong.
Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The intent had to be for all weapons jurisdiction to clearly be given only to state and local governments.
Congress gets no say at all.

As to the word "regulated", look at other places it is used in the Constitution.
For example, the federal government is authorized to regulate interstate commerce.
Did that ever mean to restrict?
Of course not.
It always meant to prevent restriction by any individual state.
It meant to facilitate the functionality of interstate commerce.

{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...}

It is clear that individual rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic, so things like interstate commerce can not be legally impeded by government for no reason. Any regulation has to be only to facilitate. While that is less clear with weapons because weapons can also obviously cause harm, the use of the same word, "regulate", is instructive.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

"""But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless."""

From Jeff Snyder at the Washington Times, 1994

 

[Rigby5]

"""But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless."""

From Jeff Snyder at the Washington Times, 1994

Banning guns to stop criminals from using them for crimes, is like trying to reduce rape by making honest people celibate.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. no, you don't. you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.

And you don't understand the words you use.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.

echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.

Good start. How's it going so far?

great; a lot fewer fallacies to deal with.

 

[danielpalos]

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?

Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??

is surrender and Option, or not?

More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.

Actually, the old guy in the wheel chair is exactly who needs to be a member of the armed militia.
Clearly he could not defend himself or his home unarmed.
And he has the right to defend himself and his home.
And that is the primary goal of the militia, defense of individual rights.
Defense of municipality, state, or country, come later and are not the primary mission of the armed militia.

The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.

only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.

When will you learn that the People are the Militia. Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.

You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.

And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.

A common misperception by the right wing; wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.

Wrong.
Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The intent had to be for all weapons jurisdiction to clearly be given only to state and local governments.
Congress gets no say at all.

As to the word "regulated", look at other places it is used in the Constitution.
For example, the federal government is authorized to regulate interstate commerce.
Did that ever mean to restrict?
Of course not.
It always meant to prevent restriction by any individual state.
It meant to facilitate the functionality of interstate commerce.

{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...}

It is clear that individual rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic, so things like interstate commerce can not be legally impeded by government for no reason. Any regulation has to be only to facilitate. While that is less clear with weapons because weapons can also obviously cause harm, the use of the same word, "regulate", is instructive.

Our federal Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.

 

[Lesh]

Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.

Nope...it's clearly to make sure that weapons are available to a "Well Regulated Militia...and we know that because it says so.

We no longer HAVE a "Well Regulated Militia" however