18
   

Civil War, in Texas ?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:17 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Oralloy hasn't presented a single fact.


Fact: The Second Amendment requires the government to always have a militia.

Fact: The Second Amendment protects the right of militiamen to buy automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas, and to keep them in their own homes.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  4  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:18 pm
Wow. Glad to see this resolved into a grand exposition of chest thumping. Makes one want to declare civil war. I wonder if this is how congress works?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:19 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
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.


Yes, I'm a male. And I've been going around and around with Set for nearly a decade now.

I do think his ever present allusions to some mythical occurrences of me being wrong are tiresome, but he also provides some good arguments hidden in the middle of all the fluff.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:19 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
I'm not defending a setantrum, but...


Come on. The last thing A2K needs is offensive words to slight other posters by name.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:22 pm
@oralloy,
I don't find that offensive.

more descriptive.

is english your first language?

If so, keep working on it. you'll master it yet, I have faith in you...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:30 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
I've been going around and around with Set for nearly a decade now.


Yeah, me too.

Quote:
I do think his ever present allusions to some mythical occurrences of me being wrong are tiresome, but he also provides some good arguments hidden in the middle of all the fluff.


I agree that he often has decent arguments in his post...and I'll add that he presents historical facts and context that are invaluable to many discussions.

He seems, however, to be unable to control his emotions or the insulting outbursts that result from that lack of control...which happen way too often.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Yeah, oralloy. Thanks for calling me names unprovoked.


I find the suggestion that I was calling you names, ludicrous.

You were suggesting that I was wrong, while refusing to even try to show any place where I was wrong. That DID make you look like a buffoon.

Exactly how is that name-calling?


And further, even in the extremely unlikely event that you can plausibly justify referring to that as name-calling, exactly how was it unprovoked? You were making untrue accusations about me, and then refusing to even try to back them up.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:40 pm
@oralloy,
I bet you were a big hit in junior high...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
He hasn't presented facts relevant to the discussion.


The fact that states have refused to send militia based on the argument that the Constitution limits the federal use of the militia to three specific areas, is very relevant to the fact that the Constitution limits the federal use of the militia to three specific areas.



Setanta wrote:
He has presented outside evidence once, and only once.


In this thread, yes. But I've also referred to a few points that didn't require an outside link because they are so well known (like Prohibition, and the recent Supreme Court challenge on health care).



Setanta wrote:
All he provides are unsubstantiated claims,


No, the part where I substantiate them, makes the claims substantiated.



Setanta wrote:
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.


It is a fair response to a baseless claim that I am somehow wrong.



Setanta wrote:
He has been calling people bufoons here, but i guess you're Ok with that.


When people claim I am wrong, without being able to show an instance of me being wrong, they look like buffoons. That's just reality.



Setanta wrote:
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.


No. Providing evidence to back my claims, counts as supporting them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:43 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
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.


Well look. I always tell the truth. The truth seldom changes from post to post.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 05:43 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
tell me again why we are required to have the latest military weapons in our homes?


The Second Amendment. Militiamen have the right to own military weapons, and the right to keep them in their own homes.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 09:12 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

The Second Amendment. Militiamen have the right to own military weapons, and the right to keep them in their own homes.

Maybe you should let the police know that your legal expertise outweighs the actual laws.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 09:48 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
The Second Amendment. Militiamen have the right to own military weapons, and the right to keep them in their own homes.


Maybe you should let the police know that your legal expertise outweighs the actual laws.


The Second Amendment is an actual law.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Aug, 2012 10:07 pm
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Quote:


The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 02:06 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions.


#3 is coming soon, within a couple years probably.

Oral arguments before the appeals court will be this fall, with a ruling in early 2013.

Then all we have to do is the en banc appeal and it's back to the Supreme Court again.

This round is focused on forcing all the big cities in America to allow everyone to carry guns in public.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 07:31 am
@oralloy,
Police have arrested persons for possessing grenades. That would be the law the police are enforcing.
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 10:43 am
By RUSS BYNUM
Associated Press

US Video

LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) -- Prosecutors say a murder case against four soldiers in Georgia has revealed they formed an anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal government.

One of the accused troops, Pfc. Michael Burnett, pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter and gang charges in the December slayings of former soldier Michael Roark and his girlfriend, 17-year-old Tiffany York.

Burnett told a Long County judge that Roark, who had just left the Army, knew of the militia group's plans and was killed because he was "a loose end."

Prosecutor Isabel Pauley says the group bought $87,000 worth of guns and bomb-making materials and plotted to take over Fort Stewart, bomb targets in nearby Savannah and Washington state, as well as assassinate the president.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Joe(yeah, they don't want to hurt no one)Nation
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 06:17 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Police have arrested persons for possessing grenades. That would be the law the police are enforcing.


Like I've told others, if you are willing to pick up all the legal bills (lawyers are expensive), I will join the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force, and sue the government for my right as a militiaman to buy automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas, and to keep them at home.

Presumably I'd have them registered on a Form 10.

I'll promise to fulfill all my duties as a militiaman regardless of the success or failure of the lawsuit.


I guarantee you that after a Supreme Court ruling that militiaman have the right to have such weapons, the police will not be arresting any militiamen for possessing them.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 06:43 pm
@oralloy,
A red-blooded patriot like you should be willing to do it unconditionally....
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Aug, 2012 06:50 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) -- Prosecutors say a murder case against four soldiers in Georgia has revealed they formed an anarchist militia within the U.S. military with plans to overthrow the federal government.


A militia is a body organized by the government, not a body formed by a bunch of guys calling themselves a militia.

Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly does allow people to organize into a body and call themselves a militia, but they aren't actually a militia.


Also, an actual militia is quite distinct and separate from the US Army. There is no way that someone who is in the Army could be in a militia (or vice versa).
 

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 07/01/2022 at 02:54:07