18
   

Civil War, in Texas ?

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 02:31 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
by your logic, you will be required to keep a muzzle loading musket and a big horse.

good luck with that...

Laughing


No. The Second Amendment is not about obsolete weaponry. A militiaman today has the right to buy automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas, and the right to keep them in his or her home.


And Justice Scalia recently mused that perhaps the Second Amendment protects the right of the general populace to own Stinger Missiles:

Quote:
SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/07/29/justice-antonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country/print
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 02:34 pm
@oralloy,
One quote of your drivel can stand for the rest:

Mr. 600 IQ wrote:
Nope. You cannot show a single instance of me ever construing any part of the Constitution to mean what it doesn't say.


You do this constantly. The constitution is mute on the subject of whether or not the militia can serve outside the United States, yet you so construe it, without a hint of logic nor reference to any specific langauge. Please provide evidence of any state refusing to allow their militia to serve outside the borders of the United States on constitutional grounds. Please provide the arguments they presented in court. You saying a thing doesn't make it so. State miliitas served outside our borders in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Were there a concerted resistence to that service by any states on constitutional grounds, it should be simplicity itself for you to present the evidence. However, my experience is that your posts are wonderfully evidence-free.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 02:35 pm
It doesn't take you long these days to descend into name-calling.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 03:23 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
One quote of your drivel can stand for the rest:

Mr. 600 IQ wrote:
Nope. You cannot show a single instance of me ever construing any part of the Constitution to mean what it doesn't say.


You do this constantly.


Strange how you cannot show a single instance of me ever doing it.



Setanta wrote:
The constitution is mute on the subject of whether or not the militia can serve outside the United States, yet you so construe it, without a hint of logic nor reference to any specific langauge.


The fact that the federal government is limited to only what areas the Constitution expressly authorizes, is the most fundamental principle behind the Constitution. And it is the core of practically every Supreme Court case in history.

And no, I've given you plenty of hints and logic. For instance I referred you to the recent Supreme Court ruling on health care, because it turned on this very principle.

For another example, look at prohibition. It was not legal until a constitutional amendment authorized it, because the Constitution had not given the feds any power in that area.



Setanta wrote:
Please provide evidence of any state refusing to allow their militia to serve outside the borders of the United States on constitutional grounds. Please provide the arguments they presented in court. You saying a thing doesn't make it so. State miliitas served outside our borders in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Were there a concerted resistence to that service by any states on constitutional grounds, it should be simplicity itself for you to present the evidence.



Quote:
In the beginning of the war of 1812 the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut declined to call out their troops at the call of the president, on the sole ground that their States were not threatened with invasion. The president ordered the militia of the northern states to march to the frontiers; but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that the constitution authorizes the federal government to call forth the militia in cases of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present instance, there was neither invasion nor insurrection.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/militia-1812.htm

Quote:
When war was declared against Great Britain, June 18, 1812, (U. S. Stat. at Large, II, 755) the Federalist minority issued an Address to their Constituents, protesting both against the war and the manner in which the declaration of war had been secured. That this war was "a party and not a national war" and entered upon by the United States "as a divided people" was soon evident by the position taken by the authorities of several of the New England States, relative to the power of the Federal Government over the State Militia. By authority of the President, General Dearborn, on June 22, addressed the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, making requisition for certain detachments of their militia, for service in the defence of the coast, but did not include in the call any officer of high rank. Governor Strong, of Massachusetts, not considering the call warranted by the Constitution, did not comply with the requisition, for reasons set forth in his correspondence with the Secretary of War, and as later stated in his Speech to the Legislature. Renewed requisitions from General Dearborn, and the Secretary of War during July, finally led to the submission of the questions involved to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/State_Documents_on_Federal_Relations/28n






Setanta wrote:
However, my experience is that your posts are wonderfully evidence-free.


No, I've always provided evidence as needed.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 03:27 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It doesn't take you long these days to descend into name-calling.


Oh nonsense. It is hardly name-calling to point out that "making claims and then refusing to even try to back them up when challenged" makes a person look like a buffoon.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 03:28 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 03:32 pm
@Rockhead,


I don't download video (trapped on dialup, no broadband available in my location yet), but can I just say that I cannot stand that horrible movie.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 04:15 pm
@oralloy,
The funny part of that oralloy is I simply used your words as my excuse to not back up statements.

But you don't seem to recognize your own buffoonery.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 04:45 pm
@oralloy,
Neither of your sources state or even imply that the refusal of the states in question was based on the prospect of their militias being required to serve outside the nation's borders. As i said, your claims are always wonderfully evidence free. I can't see any reason to continue this, as your two likeliest rhetorical crutches will be ipse dixit assertions and the "nope" rebuttal. Have fun.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 05:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The funny part of that oralloy is I simply used your words as my excuse to not back up statements.


Yes, but not in a context that was even remotely accurate.



parados wrote:
But you don't seem to recognize your own buffoonery.


No such buffoonery. There is a considerable difference between:

"me not delving very far into a subject after I stated clearly from the start that I wasn't interested and wouldn't devote much time to it"

and

"someone making an allegation that another poster is wrong, then refusing to back it up with any sort of argument".
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2012 05:22 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Neither of your sources state or even imply that the refusal of the states in question was based on the prospect of their militias being required to serve outside the nation's borders.


The refusal was based on the fact that the role of the militia is limited to only what the Constitution specifically authorizes. And the constitution only authorizes: repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law.



Setanta wrote:
As i said, your claims are always wonderfully evidence free.


But the reality is I provide tons of evidence.



Setanta wrote:
I can't see any reason to continue this, as your two likeliest rhetorical crutches will be ipse dixit assertions and the "nope" rebuttal. Have fun.


Well, when you just flatly deny reality, that seems the best way to respond.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 02:17 am
@oralloy,
That refusal on quasi-constitutional grounds (the truth was they were trading with the enemy and didn't want to stop) did not involve an objection to service outside the the national borders--you're begging the question which is no surprise.

So, in fact, you provide no evidence at all, never mind "tons."

I can face reality, i'm just tired of hearing your unsubstantiated bullshit again, and again, and again, and again, and again . . .
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 03:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
That refusal on quasi-constitutional grounds (the truth was they were trading with the enemy and didn't want to stop) did not involve an objection to service outside the the national borders


Their objection was to the fact that the militia was being used for a purpose other than the only three purposes allowed for the federal government.



Setanta wrote:
you're begging the question which is no surprise.


No, I'm just pointing out facts.



Setanta wrote:
So, in fact, you provide no evidence at all, never mind "tons."


No, I provide tons of evidence.



Setanta wrote:
I can face reality,


Good. The reality is, I provide tons of evidence to back my claims.



Setanta wrote:
i'm just tired of hearing your unsubstantiated bullshit again, and again, and again, and again, and again . . .


Funny how you can't show a single thing I am wrong about (or even a single thing I can't substantiate).
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 04:58 am
@oralloy,
No, i asked you to show where any state had ever objected on the grounds that the constitution prohibits militia service outside the United States. You failed to provide such evidence. Precisely because you say this:

Quote:
Their objection was to the fact that the militia was being used for a purpose other than the only three purposes allowed for the federal government.


. . . you are begging the question. You have failed to show that those are the only purposes allowed. When you assume an argument without doemonstrating it, you are begging the question. Your sources do not support your claim.

You don't provide tons of evidence, but that sort of ipse dixit is typical of you, which is why i'll waste no more time on your drivel. I've shown that you are wrong again and again, you just can't face up to that reality. Bye bye.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 10:47 am
@Joe Nation,
Once again, I invite you to visit Texas and find that the streets are not filled with cowshit, people don't discuss secession over shots of rot-gut, and are not setting their mongrels, all named "Dog," or Colt" after Mexicans.

You will find generally outspoken folks. extremely proud of their state and actually quite content with helping one another and very rarely telling people of lesser means, "**** You."

Of course if you bring your narrow-minded and bigoted slurring of Texas and Texans with you, you'll probably find your ass has been soundly kicked by lizard skinned boots.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 10:53 am
@Setanta,
oralloy does the same thing when he argues that the UN is intent on banning guns in the US.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 01:21 pm
@parados,
Yeah . . . it's not worth going over the same ground again and again and again, especially with someone whose idea of evidence is "because i said so."
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 01:24 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
burning cross, optional...
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 01:52 pm
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
This brings up another discussion I've seen. Maybe the USA is too big. Should it be divided up into smaller separate countries?


Perhaps but it did not work out too well for Rome but then maybe it did in one way as the Eastern Empire last around 500 years longer then the Western Empire and if they had stay together they might had both ended sooner.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 03:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn: I've been all over Texas, cousin, I know more about that multitude of places than most. I've been to dinners on the highest floors of the tallest buildings in Houston, I've been to fish frys in towns no bigger than three houses, a gas station and a Dr. Pepper machine.
I've known preachers and priests there who were near as saints as Mother Teresa, I knew one Methodist fellow who was ******* every fifteen and half year old he could get to his house for piano lessons.
Girl or boy.... .

I was there when the opened the gates to fill the Robert Lee Reservoir and I was there ten years later when it finally filled. (I just read that now it's as dry as an undertaker's laugh. http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/23/robert-lee-the-texas-town-that-nearly-went-dry/)

I've known cowboys and hicks,
goat ropers and sheep shearers,
MexTex patriots (We will rejoin Mexijo and be free.)
Texas Patriots (It's illegal for the federal government to tax us for gasoline made from oil we produced. "You produced??" WELL, was produced here in Texas!!"
(Right)
I like Texas and I like Texans.
I like the ones who are so honest you can leave your car parked out front of their driveway with the keys in it but they won't move it without actually speaking with you about it.
I like the ones who are so dishonest it's best to always back out of any room they are in because they are, despite our experience with Cheney, more likely to shoot you in the ass (They think that's harmless fun.) as shoot you in the face.

I know those guys from the feedlot. I know that guy from the army. I know fifty times more chicanos than any of those gringos.
I know the gunnuts are the biggest bunch of uninformed jackasses as ever tried to walk across a wet plowed field.
I am not worried about them, those cowards won't do anything but mutter and spit.
Joe(I am worried about anyone who thinks they are serious like the judge)Nation
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2022 at 01:40:22