Done!
And the cupcakes who hate militias are mad!
Thats fucking hiliarious!
On Jan 13, 11:19 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> There you go again appealing to Authority ... pretending that what
> the Court says is instead what the Constitution states.
>
> "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
> establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever
> Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
> they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an
> army upon their
> ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during
> floor debate over the Second Amendment , August 17, 1789
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
> they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
> America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
> body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any
> bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the
> United States" -- Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading
> Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at
> swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification
>
> At 11:09 AM 1/13/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >A well regulated militia,...
> >(there's those pesky regulations again...)
> >---------------------------------------------------
>
> >[The second amendment] is an individual right, unconnected with
> >service in a militia" US Supreme Court, June 8, 2008.
>
> >That one is OVER! Try again in another 70 years
>
> >On Jan 13, 8:01 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > At 12:19 AM 1/13/2011, you wrote:A well regulated militia,...
> > > (there's those pesky regulations again...)
> > > ...being necessary to the security of a free State,
> > > In reality you have identified a nominative absolute.(if it's
> > necessary, government should provide them to me for free)
> > > No. Legitimate Government SECURES rights. It is not a gang that
> > > plunders SOME to the benefit of OTHERS.the right of the people to
> > keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> > > And you have found the 'meat and potatoes' of the sentence.
> > > Remember diagramming way back when ...Infringed; advance beyond
> > the usual limit. Go against as in rules or
> > > laws.
> > > (I wonder what the usual limit was back then? I bet most people had a
> > > dozen or more back in 1776.)
> > > A perusal of the REMAINDER of the Constitution quckly reveal that
> > > no power exists to 'infringe' in the first place.I'll assume Arms
> > refers to any weapon able to fit in ones arms, and
> > > not specifically a gun anymore than a spear or sword.
> > > Why can't I have a bazooka or rocket launcher?
> > > It fits in my arms.
> > > Because Government is VIOLATING its charter.And it would also
> > make any guns people carry practically valueless in
> > > the same way guns made spears and swords valueless.
> > > Not really, but if it aids your pleasing vision.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ "A well-educated electorate being necessary for
> > self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep
> > and read books shall not be infringed." Is there anyone who would
> > suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?
> > --Robert Levy, Georgetown University professor
>
> >--
> >Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >* Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >* Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment