Judge Roberts backlash

@oralloy,

You are delusional. Now don't forget to find a flimsy excuse to accuse me of hating freedom. You're not worth this effort. See ya 'round, clown.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You are delusional.

Funny how you can never identify a single fact I've ever had wrong.

(I'd wondered if that National Guard officers thing would be the first time you ever found an error on my part. Guess you're not going to pursue it though.)

Setanta wrote:

Now don't forget to find a flimsy excuse to accuse me of hating freedom.

I don't use flimsy excuses. However, I see no basis for accusing you of being a freedom hater. You are merely factually incorrect.

Setanta wrote:

You're not worth this effort. See ya 'round, clown.

In other words, I cited the Constitution correctly, and you can't find any basis for arguing against my position (there isn't any to find).

0 Replies

I've repeatedly "identified" the alleged "facts" that you've gotten wrong. You just use your only rhetorical crutch, which is the "nope" ploy. You make ipse dixit contentions without a shred of support, and that's because you start with a polemical position, and proceed to warped interpretations of your holy scripture, the constitution (which you obviously don't know very well at all), in order to prop up your feeble arguments.

Which is why i say, and now repeat, that you are delusional.

1 Reply

This is the last time i'll address your idiocy. The constitution assumes that there is a militia (a reasonable assumption at the time), but it does not require a militia. The constitution authorizes the Congess to assemble an army and to build a navy. The constitution never mentions any "state guard." The Dick Act (the Militia Act of 1903) provides for both an organized and an unorganized militia, and you have provided no plausible objection to that act on constitutional grounds. All you do is make polecmical statements. Things are not true just because you say them.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I've repeatedly "identified" the alleged "facts" that you've gotten wrong.

You've repeatedly claimed I've been wrong on various facts, but I've always been able to defend my facts successfully and prove that you were the one that was wrong.

Setanta wrote:

You just use your only rhetorical crutch, which is the "nope" ploy. You make ipse dixit contentions without a shred of support,

I believe someone once said: "That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." If someone makes an obviously false statement without any attempt to back it up, that is the proper response for me to give.

When it is justified however, I also provide ample backing to support my claims.

I've provided ample backing for my claims in this thread, so you should have no cause to complain about simple "nope" arguments.

Setanta wrote:

and that's because you start with a polemical position, and proceed to warped interpretations of your holy scripture, the constitution (which you obviously don't know very well at all),

If I know so little about it, how come you can't show a single point where I'm actually wrong about it?

Setanta wrote:

in order to prop up your feeble arguments.

Funny how you cannot point out any flaws in my supposedly feeble arguments.

Setanta wrote:

Which is why i say, and now repeat, that you are delusional.

Repeating this empty claim won't change the reality that you cannot show a single part of my facts that are wrong.

(Except maybe for the National Guard officers thing. I should allow for the possibility that after all these years you've finally found a single point I've been wrong about.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This is the last time i'll address your idiocy.

If it is idiocy, how come you cannot show that it is wrong?

Setanta wrote:

The constitution assumes that there is a militia (a reasonable assumption at the time), but it does not require a militia.

That is incorrect. The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that the government always have a militia on hand.

Setanta wrote:

The constitution authorizes the Congess to assemble an army and to build a navy. The constitution never mentions any "state guard."

The Constitution mentions the militia though. And the State Guards clearly are a better fit to what the Constitution says than the National Guard is. (They aren't a perfect fit, but the part where they differ, differs in a way that doesn't actually violate the Constitution.)

Setanta wrote:

The Dick Act (the Militia Act of 1903) provides for both an organized and an unorganized militia, and you have provided no plausible objection to that act on constitutional grounds.

So? Is there some reason I'm supposed to object to it?

Setanta wrote:

All you do is make polecmical statements.

I didn't think the notion of embracing civil rights and adhering to the Constitution was particularly controversial.

Setanta wrote:

Things are not true just because you say them.

I've never had any need to "make things true". My preference to just go with the truth from the start means all I really need to do is just stick to the facts and things work out for themselves.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You're a nutter, man. You're free to believe whatever you wish, but at the end of the day, you're not part of any militia and you don't have the right to own the sorts of weapons that you say would be necessary to be a part of any such group. You can mutter all you like about how unconstitutional that is, but you're full of **** and everyone knows it.

No different than the gold-bugs or those who say all modern taxes are illegal.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You're full of ****.

From Wiki.

Quote:

The shift from States' power to Federal power
A major concern of the various delegates during the constitutional debates over the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution revolved around the issue of transferring militia power held by the States' (under the existing Articles of Confederation), to Federal control. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article 1 section 2 of the constitution. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. .[13]

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're a nutter, man.

You're no different from the sexist pigs who demeaned the suffragettes once upon a time.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're free to believe whatever you wish, but at the end of the day, you're not part of any militia and you don't have the right to own the sorts of weapons that you say would be necessary to be a part of any such group.

Yes and no. You are only assuming that I've not joined the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force.

Your assumption is correct, though. I've not joined the MVDF. (Though I might if they ever invade Ohio to reclaim Toledo. Twisted Evil

)

However, such members do have such a right. The Second Amendment is very clear on the rights of militiamen. They have the right to keep arms, as well as to bear them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You can mutter all you like about how unconstitutional that is, but you're full of **** and everyone knows it.

Nope. I provided a wealth of links to prove my case, and you've not been able to mount any sort of argument whatsoever against what I said.

Your complete inability to make any sort of counterargument to my points is a pretty good indication that I am right.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No different than the gold-bugs or those who say all modern taxes are illegal.

No, if someone said modern taxes were illegal, it would be possible to confront them with a solid argument as to why they are mistaken.

That is quite a contrast to your profound inability to address any of the evidence I laid out.

Your failure to mount any sort of argument does not reflect on *my* position. It reflects on *your* position.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're full of ****.

Not at all. You're just too stupid to understand the subject.

cicerone imposter wrote:

From Wiki.

Quote:
The shift from States' power to Federal power
A major concern of the various delegates during the constitutional debates over the Constitution and the Second Amendment to the Constitution revolved around the issue of transferring militia power held by the States' (under the existing Articles of Confederation), to Federal control. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article 1 section 2 of the constitution. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. .[13]

Nice that you've figured out how to cut-n-paste. Now run along and try to find a subject more suited to your intellectual limitations.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nice try, but the article from Wiki proves you wrong.

Also, there is nothing in the US Constitution about militias. Militias were established by the Defense Department.

[quote]The National Guard was established as a reserve component with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code The National Defense Act of 1947 created the Air Force as a separate branch of the Amed Forces of the United States and concurrently created the Air National Guard as one of it's reserve components, mirroring the Army's component structure. The National Guard of the several states, territories and the District of Columbia serves as part of the first-line defense for the United States.[8] The state National Guard is organized into units stationed in each of the 50 states and US territories, and operates under their respective state governor or territorial adjutant general.[9] The National Guard may be called up for active duty by state governors or territorial adjutant general to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.[9][/quote]

The National Guard is the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States. Militia companies were formed with the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607, but the first militia regiments were organized by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on 13 December 1636.

The US Constitution was signed in 1787.

You're wrong again!

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Also, there is nothing in the US Constitution about militias. Militias were established by the Defense Department.

Look dummy, your idiotic babbling is polluting the thread.

Why don't you run along and find a topic that you aren't too stupid to understand.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

What's the matter? Can't respond without ad hominems? Challenge what I write, not me. If that's possible. It only shows your ignorance.

You're the one that's being challenged by "everybody." That should be a clue for any ignoramus, but you're too stupid to see it.

You're way above your head on most subjects; that's the reason why you're challenged. Some people have given up on your ignorance and bone-headed responses that has no credible support. Your personal opinions don't count; they are imaginations from your grey matter.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Militia companies were formed with the first English settlement at Jamestown in 1607

Militia were also formed by Plantagenet kings.

The 1181 Assize of Arms set up the legal framework that led ultimately (after many twists and turns) to our Second Amendment freedoms.

(Since the buffoon is cut-n-pasting random pieces of trivia off Wikipedia, I may as well take the opportunity to slip in some useful information.)

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What's the matter? Can't respond without ad hominems?

Nice bit of hypocrisy there, given your longstanding tendency to spout off insults whenever you come across something you are too stupid to understand (which is pretty much everything).

cicerone imposter wrote:

Challenge what I write, not me. If that's possible.

Possible, yes. But not worth it. You are too stupid to understand the subject, and you are too stupid to understand what I write.

The end result of any serious reply to you will be your total lack of comprehension, followed by a bit of namecalling. It would be a complete waste of time and effort to compose such an argument.

If it makes you feel any better though, I did just respond to some of your idiotic rambling with a substantive reply. (I wasn't so much replying to you though, as I was taking advantage of your babbling as an excuse to slip in some useful information.)

cicerone imposter wrote:

It only shows your ignorance.

You're the one that's being challenged by "everybody." That should be a clue for any ignoramus, but you're too stupid to see it.

You're way above your head on most subjects; that's the reason why you're challenged. Some people have given up on your ignorance and bone-headed responses

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own ignorance and stupidity.

cicerone imposter wrote:

responses that has no credible support.

Nope. I provided a wealth of support for my claims. And the intelligent posters here have had to do quite a bit of dancing around to try to obscure the fact that they have no argument against any of it.

But nevermind that. That is a matter for the smart people to worry about. Like I said before, why don't you try to find a subject more suited to your intellectual limitations?

0 Replies

oralloy:

Quote:

"You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters..."

Trash? Betters?

wtf?

If you're not a racist scumbag you're doing an Oscar-worthy imitation of one...

3 Replies

@snood,

How did race factor in at all?

3 Replies

@oralloy,

All I can think of when I read your posts is cuckoo clocks.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

He's just trolling at this point, trying to get folks upset so he can feel superior.

I suggest we reply to all of his posts with "CUCKOO!"

1 Reply

@Lash,

You obviously dont read Ollory's stuff.

2 Replies

Judge Roberts backlash

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know