Militia question 1

[Jocko]

Maybe not in those words, but it's clear from your post you acknowledge the 2nd amendment does in fact give people the right to own guns (either that, or you're a bigot).

You just don't like.

As always, Europeans are shocked when someone doesn't want to hop on the Appeasement Express. I'm just waiting for the penultimate "But Europe would like you SO much better then!" argument.

As if I gave a rat's ass.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe not in those words, but it's clear from your post you acknowledge the 2nd amendment does in fact give people the right to own guns (either that, or you're a bigot).

You just don't like it.

 

[CFLarsen]

What an ass you can be. Any part of the US Constitution can be amended, updated or repealed outright if there is adequate support (I'll let you look up what that support entails; it's more likely to stick if you have to work for it).

No, you're just appalled that the US hasn't chosen to exercise that power on the 2nd Amendment in accordance with your euro-trash elitist snobbery. And then you have the gall tto get defensive when your transparent ploy to make it look like an honest question for serious responses is revealed in the first posts.

Aw, poor Claus. So irrelevant. Cry me a river and keep the hell away from the Constitution until you're willing to listen as well as preach.

Oh, yes, that must be it. I should now go sip my Beaujolais Nouveau and eat my brie, and otherwise keep to myself, right?

 

[Jocko]

Oh, yes, that must be it. I should now go sip my Beaujolais Nouveau and eat my brie, and otherwise keep to myself, right?

Suits me fine, eurotrash.

 

[Luke T.]

I believe some confusion has developed from Claus' post about Denmark and precedents. I believe he was just elaborating on the post I made from Democracy in America which discussed England, France, and America and the role of precedents in those countries by informing us of how things are in Denmark regarding precedents. I don't believe this in any way changed the tack of Claus' argument regarding the Second Amendment.

 

[Jocko]

I believe some confusion has developed from Claus' post about Denmark and precedents. I believe he was just elaborating on the post I made from Democracy in America which discussed England, France, and America and the role of precedents in those countries by informing us of how things are in Denmark regarding precedents. I don't believe this in any way changed the tack of Claus' argument regarding the Second Amendment.

Of course not. It's not a comparison of systems, it's just he's right and the Constitution is wrong. That has been his tack since the beginning, although he obviously believed no one would notice.

 

[CFLarsen]

Suits me fine, eurotrash.

Awww......(pats you on the head). Feeling better now?

 

[Luke T.]

Of course not. It's not a comparison of systems, it's just he's right and the Constitution is wrong. That has been his tack since the beginning, although he obviously believed no one would notice.

I have not received an acknowledgement or denial from the gun control side about my supposition that they believe the 2nd Amendment grants everyone the right to own a gun and just needs to be overruled.

(edited to add: That supposition is why I went off on the tangent about the American obsession with precedents and our reluctance to set new ones)

I could be wrong about that. The gun control side may believe the 2nd Amendment does not grant everyone the right to own a gun.

Claus seems, to me, to be coming from the angle that it is unclear exactly what the 2nd Amendment grants.

 

[Jocko]

Awww......(pats you on the head). Feeling better now?

Still here? I'd have thought you were back at work coming up with credulous arguments explaining why I don't need free speech, religion or association either.

In case you haven't noticed, Claus, much of the American system of government was specifically designed from the ground up to NOT please European sensibilities.

BTW, Ion called. He wants his put-downs back.

 

[Jocko]

Claus seems, to me, to be coming from the angle that it is unclear exactly what the 2nd Amendment grants.

Well, Shane provided him with chapter and verse. His English is adequate to the task; what's not to understand? He still wants to dither about "regulated" or any other weasel-word he can seize on.

Claus is not interested in debate. He's also a lousy con artist.

 

[Ed]

I would like to restate some facts regarding this issue:

- The US constitution, with associated writings of the framers clearly state that ownership of weapons is a fundimental right.

- A reading of the SA makes this clear, the fundimential right is assumed and underscored by reference to a militia.

- The right exists with or without reference to a militia; the concept of militia is irrelevant to the basic right.

- If the people wish, the constitution can be amended. The fact that the SA has not indicates a basic acceptence of it's ramifications.

- The will of the people with regard to weapons can also be gauged thru acts of commission; witness the growth of clear statements regarding the right to bear arms in state constitutions as well as the growth of carry laws and, for that matter, reciprocity between the states.

- It is palpable to me that Europeans are unwilling or unable to understand or accept American culture with regard to weapons. For whatever reasons it is an alien concept. For reasons beyond me, this misunderstanding/ignorance is often accompanied by an air of smug superiority. This being the case, there is no basis for a discussion of any kind with people of that mindset.

That sums it up.

 

[Jocko]

I would like to restate some facts regarding this issue:

- The US constitution, with associated writings of the framers clearly state that ownership of weapons is a fundimental right.

- A reading of the SA makes this clear, the fundimential right is assumed and underscored by reference to a militia.

- The right exists with or without reference to a militia; the concept of militia is irrelevant to the basic right.

- If the people wish, the constitution can be amended. The fact that the SA has not indicates a basic acceptence of it's ramifications.

- The will of the people with regard to weapons can also be gauged thru acts of commission; witness the growth of clear statements regarding the right to bear arms in state constitutions as well as the growth of carry laws and, for that matter, reciprocity between the states.

- It is palpable to me that Europeans are unwilling or unable to understand or accept American culture with regard to weapons. For whatever reasons it is an alien concept. For reasons beyond me, this misunderstanding/ignorance is often accompanied by an air of smug superiority. This being the case, there is no basis for a discussion of any kind with people of that mindset.

That sums it up.

Well said.

 

[The Don]

It explains a great deal, thank you. So when do we start blitzing French boards with leading questions about why everything they do is wrong?

When your written French is sufficiently good to carry on a comprehensible political debate in the language.

 

[Jocko]

When your written French is sufficiently good to carry on a comprehensible political debate in the language.

Touche.

How's that?

My point was, there's more to having a valid or worthwhile point of view than overcoming a language barrier. There's a cultural divide here that Claus can't understand, and I can't understand his lack of understanding.

We're both at fault in that regard, and that's fine as far as it goes.

However, I'm not the one applying an amalgam of ignorance and arrogance to something I don't/can't understand, i.e., European law & culture. A lifetime of French lessons won't change that.

Besides, there's more to being Eurotrash than your accent. Informed? Egalitarian? Most certainly not. But then I'm not the one tryng to sound superior, now am I?

 

[c0rbin]

LukeT,

Good job on mentioning the black panthers. There were many incidents of shoot outs, armed demonstrations, and police crack-downs on weapon caches.

Interesting times.

Claus,

You have an agenda, no?

You would seem to me less a coward if you came out with it (your agenda) and then moved forward, instead of dancing from point to point--much like the creationists I have talked to online.

 

[CFLarsen]

...fundimental...

A Freudian slip?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

You have an agenda, no?

I'm not sure if I have an agenda. But I have views.

You would seem to me less a coward if you came out with it (your agenda) and then moved forward, instead of dancing from point to point--much like the creationists I have talked to online.

What do you want to know?

 

[CFLarsen]

Touche.

How's that?

Close. "Touché."

My point was, there's more to having a valid or worthwhile point of view than overcoming a language barrier. There's a cultural divide here that Claus can't understand, and I can't understand his lack of understanding.

I've lived in the US, and although I understand the historical reasons for wanting to arm a "militia" during the Revolutionary War, I apparently cannot get it through my thick skull that while things have changed dramatically, things have to stay the same.

Maybe it's just me.

Is it because you don't have that much history that you cling so desperately to the bit you have?

Besides, there's more to being Eurotrash than your accent. Informed? Egalitarian? Most certainly not. But then I'm not the one tryng to sound superior, now am I?

Trust me, you do not sound superior at all.

 

[Tony]

I've lived in the US, and although I understand the historical reasons for wanting to arm a "militia" during the Revolutionary War, I apparently cannot get it through my thick skull that while things have changed dramatically, things have to stay the same.

Perhaps because things haven't changed dramatically? We still have a government that seeks to subvert and restrict our rights. There are still states and parties hostile to this country. And crime is still a problem. You must live in the Mushroom Kingdom if you think things have change so much that government tyranny, crime, and attacks from foreign entities are no longer a threat.

It's apparent that you're a victim of the pro-statist, pro-totalitarian propaganda that says government can be trusted and is a force for good.

 

[c0rbin]

I want to know what your agenda is here.

When I go to creationists sites and start threads titled "A Question for Creationists" I admit that my questions have probably all already been answered and that my being on that forum at all is an excersize in amusement.

What is your reason for starting this thread?

You start out with this: "I would like to hear more about this "militia" thingie, and will open 4 threads. Let's keep it on track for once, shall we?"

You are at once arrogant and condescending--likely not at all interested in hearing proponents' points of view, but hoping to draw out a soft spot and pound on it for your amusement.

If this is not the case, what is your point?