Civil War, in Texas ?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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.

I may not have provided evidence that fit your narrowly tailored request, but I provided ample evidence to back my position.

Setanta wrote:

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.

Wrong. The sources say that those states specifically refused because the government was using the militia for a purpose other than the only purposes they are authorized to use it for.

Here is a narrower quote of the same cite:

Quote:

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

I also referred you to a couple events that, while I did not link to them, I know very well that you are familiar with: Prohibition and the recent big Supreme Court challenge over health care. Both examples also clearly demonstrate the core Constitutional principle you are denying.

Setanta wrote:

You don't provide tons of evidence,

Yes I do.

Setanta wrote:

but that sort of ipse dixit is typical of you,

It is an adequate response to an empty claim that I do not show evidence.

Setanta wrote:

I've shown that you are wrong again and again,

No you haven't.

Setanta wrote:

you just can't face up to that reality.

Reality: You can't point to a single instance where you have ever shown that I am wrong.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy does the same thing when he argues that the UN is intent on banning guns in the US.

Yes. In that case, I also provided tons of evidence.

More than tons in fact. I provided link after link after link to official UN documents on official UN websites.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

I know the gunnuts are the biggest bunch of uninformed jackasses as ever tried to walk across a wet plowed field.

I may not be from Texas, but I defy any freedom hater to point out a single fact that *I* am wrong about.

Joe Nation wrote:

I am not worried about them, those cowards won't do anything but mutter and spit.

Perhaps it is not so much that they are cowards as it is that they are just normal people who have no desire to harm anyone.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

who have no desire to harm anyone.

but want to own an arsenal, just in case they change their mind...

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Ah yes, the "nope" rebuttal. You're a piece of work, Bubba. Do me the favor of not responding to my posts any longer. I think you are a loud-mouthed, ignorant jackass.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Orally, I want to congratulate you on the tone you are using in your responses to the people goading you. You have presented facts...and you have argued your points reasonably and a hell of a lot more courteously than some of them have.

Stay with it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Oralloy hasn't presented a single fact. But i'm not surprised to see you show up to attempt to stir the turd, Frank, it's all you've got going for you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Well...you've indicated that you were going to stop reading Orally's posts...and you have continued to do so.

You've indicated that you were going to stop reading mine...and you continue to do so.

I thank you for that.

As for Orally not presenting a single fact...that is beneath even you. He has presented many facts. You apparently do not like them...or you want him to present other facts, but to suggest that he has not presented a single one is singularly silly.

Orally, I am assuming you are male. If you are female, I apologize for the male pronouns. Sorry you have to go through this with Setanta, but almost everyone in A2K eventually does. Setanta gets his jollies by making disparaging comments about others. Don't take him seriously.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'm not defending a setantrum, but...

making disparaging comments about others kinda reminds me of you, frankie...

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

If you're trying to think in common sense terms, you're going to fail.

They're all bonkers, and we know it!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

He hasn't presented facts relevant to the discussion. Just because he says something is a fact, that doesn't make it so. He has presented outside evidence once, and only once. That was after i had asked him if he had any evidence that any state had ever refused to call out the militia because the constitution prohibits the militia from serving outside the nation's borders. What he provided does not answer that question.

All he provides are unsubstantiated claims, and when you point out that he is wrong, his resonse if the "nope" rebuttal. It's flimsy and paltry, it's all he's got. He has been calling people bufoons here, but i guess you're Ok with that. As usual, you get your jollies with passive-aggressive sneers at other members. In fact, it was the possibility of such an opportunity which is the sole reason you showed up.

I haven't discussed this subject with him any further, because we've been through this again and again, and he constantly fails to support his claims. So i have stoppped discussing it with him. Just as i stopped discussing your pathetic performance in the thread about the teacher who thought it would be cool to **** some of her students. What was hilarious was your righteous indignation when i pointed out both your hypocrisy and your immoral position.

But that's how you get your jollies, isn't it Frank, passive-aggressive sneers along with a phony claim to moral superiority.

4 Replies

@Setanta,

When you talk to a cuckoo clock, you can always expect the same response....

Oralloy has exactly as much autonomy as a cuckoo bird on a clock.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Quote:

I'm not defending a setantrum, but...

making disparaging comments about others kinda reminds me of you, frankie...

I have refrained from doing that Rockhead, but if you want to cite some instances and I find that you are correct, I will apologize.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'll not derail the thread at this time, frank.

and I must admit that this most recent incarnation of frank apisa has been less hostile than previous versions...

something to think about when accusin' others, though, don't you think?

(I'll go back to my bowling alley friends now...)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

He hasn't presented facts relevant to the discussion.

Gosh, is this actually some back-pedaling, Setanta?

Originally you wrote: Oralloy hasn't presented a single fact.

I called you on that, saying: As for Orally not presenting a single fact...that is beneath even you. He has presented many facts. You apparently do not like them...or you want him to present other facts, but to suggest that he has not presented a single one is singularly silly.

Now we see the qualifier “relevant to this discussion”…and the “single fact” has changed.

Any reason for that, Set?

Perhaps this is another case where you are dead wrong…and will do anything not to acknowledge that you are.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Just because he says something is a fact, that doesn't make it so.

That is correct. But it may be a fact...and several things he has said are facts.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

who have no desire to harm anyone.

but want to own an arsenal, just in case they change their mind...

Maybe they just like guns. Do people buy exotic sports cars (assuming they can afford them) just in case they want to drive 180 MPH in a 15 MPH school zone? Or do they do it because they enjoy the cars?

Maybe they own an arsenal because they use guns for a variety of purposes. I could probably justify someone's ownership of a dozen different guns based solely on different types of hunting (to say nothing of different self-defense roles).

I suspect most gun owners would reluctantly harm someone in self defense, and many may arm in case of that eventuality, but that is not an actual desire to cause harm (and in any case, self defense is legitimate).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Orally, I want to congratulate you on the tone you are using in your responses to the people goading you. You have presented facts...and you have argued your points reasonably and a hell of a lot more courteously than some of them have.

Stay with it.

Thanks. I think we may be on opposite sides on some issues. But we're both defending the truth as best we can.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Yeah, oralloy. Thanks for calling me names unprovoked.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

tell me again why we are required to have the latest military weapons in our homes?

cuckoo.

gotta go work now.

ya'll have fun...

1 Reply

Civil War, in Texas ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know