Militia question 1

[Tony]

Things have changed dramatically since the heady days of the heroic Revolution. You think we still live in a world of muskets? In a world with no technology, no computers, no mass-media, no science?.

No, but those things are irrellevant to the issue of crime, and government tyranny. Do you think just because we have computers and mass media that government can magically be trusted and murderers and rapists are more safe?

Why don't you get your head out of your rectum and realize that we live in a fundamentally different world than the one Paul Revere inhabited?

Because it hasn't. Power still currupts and sh!t still happens.

That there are states (which ones??) and parties (ditto) is not necessarily evidence that the country is bad

Bwahahahahahahahahah. Not only do you miss the point, you ask for evidence of which states and parties pose a danger to my country and the world? Forgive me but, bwahahahahahahah. You've reached a new depth of dumb.

Or are you right, simply because you are against the government?

No. I don't see how this relates to the issue.

Crime? Deal with it.

Deal with it? Like, umm, protecting yourself from it? That's why people buy guns, to deal with it. You just roll over and take it. You really are stupid.

Nobody has claimed that there aren't threats. The key is to find the real ones, and let go of the imaginary ones

History has shown us the real threat and nothing is greater a threat than government tyranny.

 

[Jocko]

Sorry, but the Danish government cannot conduct searches of my home without a court order. Can they in your country?

Just yes or no.

Yes - with probable cause. Did the Nazis go through the same legal procedures? You're old enough to remember, surely! So now you see the futility of cherrypicking individual exceptions, can we move on?

No idea what you are talking about.
Ditto.
Ditto.

No kidding. What a shocker.

It has nothing to do with my nature. Is it really that comfortable for you to portray me as some unreachable figure, only so you won't have to explain what you mean?

Unreachable? I wouldn't reach for you with a 10-foot cattle prod. Unreachable is what you try to portray; uneducatable is what actually comes across. I just gave you four elementary demonstrations of things you just plain don't get, and you proved my point across the board. Why should I bother trying to explain something to you, any more than try to teach a cat Latin?

This is what I don't understand: The US has absolutely no qualms about telling others how to run their countries, but dare to suggest that things are not all peachy in Jesusland, and you get smited!

Ah, the inevitable Jesusland reference. What was that about Freudian slips? The envy dusting your impotent hatred is starting to wear thin, Claus. Freedom to think, worship, speak, etc. will give you all sorts of people, including the Jesus freaks, yes. I'll take them over a nation of boobs like you any day.

Fascinating, this deification of mere mortals. Jefferson? A slave owner. Madison? A slave owner. So? They were humans, not worthy of being worshipped.

Not worshipped. Admired. Emulated. Everything you're not.

Then, the courts step in. Is there a problem somewhere?

Ah, the endless confidence of the entitled. You never see it coming, any more than the population of Pompeii did. The only tragedy is we'll have to bail you out when it all comes down.... again.

Actually, I haven't really seen any arguments that I don't understand American culture. I quite possibly understand it too well.

Of course. Who could ever doubt it? When Claus comes across as an ill-informed bumbling bigot, it's only because he's TOO smart. What a boob you are.

Yes, please live down to my expectations of you being camera fodder for Jerry Springer.

Try that crap on the French and you might get somewhere. Try it on an American and you're likely to get your lofty nose bloodied.

Since you're such a wordly genius, I'd like you to explain why it's taken you 5 pages of my telling you "I don't care what you think" before you get it?

That's assuming you got it that time, of course.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, but those things are irrellevant to the issue of crime, and government tyranny. Do you think just because we have computers and mass media that government can magically be trusted and murderers and rapists are more safe?

Of course not. But we can determine who has committed the crime far more efficiently than before, because of science.

Because it hasn't. Power still currupts and sh!t still happens.

Yeah. But, since you obviously don't like my ideas, what do you suggest that we do? Let our conestogas form interimistic fortresses to counter the attacks from the injuns?

Bwahahahahahahahahah. Not only do you miss the point, you ask for evidence of which states and parties pose a danger to my country and the world? Forgive me but, bwahahahahahahah. You've reached a new depth of dumb.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you and I are debating on a skeptics' forum. Where claims are met with demands for evidence.

Put up or shut up.

No. I don't see how this relates to the issue.

No? How about explaining what you mean, then? Why are you right?

Deal with it? Like, umm, protecting yourself from it? That's why people buy guns, to deal with it. You just roll over and take it. You really are stupid.

So, your suggestion is to hunker down and shoot it out? Yeah, that sounds real civilized!

History has shown us the real threat and nothing is greater a threat than government tyranny.

What is a real threat to you? In your every day life, and in regard to your country?

 

[Jocko]

What is a real threat to you? In your every day life, and in regard to your country?

Let's settle this nonsense right here and now:

Claus, what is a right, and why do you need it? You've lived in America (so you say), so try to keep it in context. Just this once, for us "Jesus Freaks."

 

[shanek]

First of all, it is an opinion, not a fact.

No, LIAR. It was a statement of FACT. You made a FACTUAL statement about my feelings towards my country, which you KNOW to be false.

Regardless of that, I don't think I am mistaken either. You have in the past spouted rant after rant about how bad government is

And many other times I have stated why government is necessary and what its legitimate purpose is, and why I think the American government as spelled out in our Constitution is our best hope of achieving that. So QUIT LYING.

heck, you have even joined a political party that wants government to disappear as much as possible.

I didn't join an anarchist party. You know this as well. You are compounding your lie.

You are a LIAR, you will NOT ADMIT a lie when it is pointed out, and you will COMPOUND that lie in order to cover for it.

 

[Luke T.]

Look....either you point to the historical understanding of what a militia is - and therefore, we have to judge it based on the understanding of the term from that time - or you point to the contemporary understanding of the term.

You cannot play both sides.

As far as I know, that definition is both the historical and contemporary understanding, Claus. Guess times haven't changed that much, after all.

 

[shanek]

Simple: I would like to hear more about this "militia" thingie.

What more do you need to hear? It's the armed body of the people, capable of banding together to fight crime or oppressive government actions, and which can be called into action to fight rebels or invaders.

What more do you need to know?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes - with probable cause. Did the Nazis go through the same legal procedures? You're old enough to remember, surely! So now you see the futility of cherrypicking individual exceptions, can we move on?

No, not with "probable cause". They can search your home, for no reason whatsoever.

I do find it amusing that you consider me finding concrete example of your country strongly resembling a police state as "cherry picking"....

No kidding. What a shocker.

Do you have a reply?

Unreachable? I wouldn't reach for you with a 10-foot cattle prod. Unreachable is what you try to portray; uneducatable is what actually comes across. I just gave you four elementary demonstrations of things you just plain don't get, and you proved my point across the board. Why should I bother trying to explain something to you, any more than try to teach a cat Latin?

OK. It is uncomfortable for you to explain, then. Or simply impossible. How can we tell? Gee...

Ah, the inevitable Jesusland reference. What was that about Freudian slips? The envy dusting your impotent hatred is starting to wear thin, Claus. Freedom to think, worship, speak, etc. will give you all sorts of people, including the Jesus freaks, yes. I'll take them over a nation of boobs like you any day.

And you seem to have no problem, when the Jesusfreak is inhabiting the White House as well. I really can't understand why some Americans are so willing to give up on the freedoms they claim to love so much.

Not worshipped. Admired. Emulated. Everything you're not.

Oh, you should see the emails I get. Most are not of the kind kind - that is expected, when you challenge the beliefs of believers. But I do have my share of positive feedback.

Nevertheless: Would you emulate having slaves? If not, why not? What parts of your heroes should you emulate?

Ah, the endless confidence of the entitled. You never see it coming, any more than the population of Pompeii did. The only tragedy is we'll have to bail you out when it all comes down.... again.

Ah, the old "Yankee Destroying the Nazis, Thereby Saving The World" ruse. We owe just as much - if not more - to the Russians. They bore the brunt of WW2, not the Americans. (And do ask me for concrete evidence, because I will give it to you.)

Of course. Who could ever doubt it? When Claus comes across as an ill-informed bumbling bigot, it's only because he's TOO smart. What a boob you are.

When you can contribute to the debate, feel free to join in.

Try that crap on the French and you might get somewhere. Try it on an American and you're likely to get your lofty nose bloodied.

(Could somebody explain to Jocko that he just proved my point??)

Since you're such a wordly genius, I'd like you to explain why it's taken you 5 pages of my telling you "I don't care what you think" before you get it?

That's assuming you got it that time, of course.

I was hoping that, somewhere down, deep inside, there might be a reasonable argument hidden in you. I was wrong.

 

[Tony]

Of course not. But we can determine who has committed the crime far more efficiently than before, because of science.

So fukking what!!! That has nothing do with the fact that crime still happens, is dangerous, and is something that the general public needs to protect against.

Yeah. But, since you obviously don't like my ideas.

You don't have any ideas. Unless you're calling rolling over and trusting the government an idea.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you and I are debating on a skeptics' forum. Where claims are met with demands for evidence.

Bwahahahahahahahahhahahaha. You're as funny as you are dumb. Are you going to sit there and seriously contend that there are no states and parties which pose a threat to my country? Seriously?

No? How about explaining what you mean, then? Why are you right?

Huh? Why am I right?!? What the hell are you talking about?

So, your suggestion is to hunker down and shoot it out? Yeah, that sounds real civilized!

No, my suggesting is to do what you think is necessary to protect yourself. If that means hunkering down, ok. If that means carrying a gun, ok. If that means going unarmed, ok.

Furthermore, I'm not interested in civilized. I'm interest in freedom, civil rights, human rights and individual rights. If "civilized" conflicts with one of those, to hell with it.

What is a real threat to you? In your every day life, and in regard to your country?

I'd say the police is the real threat to me, in my everyday life. In regards to my country, I'd say that islamic fascists are the real threat.

 

[c0rbin]

This is what I don't understand: The US has absolutely no qualms about telling others how to run their countries, but dare to suggest that things are not all peachy in Jesusland, and you get smited!

The agenda takes form...

 

[Jocko]

Answer the question, Claus.

What is a right, and why do you need it?

 

[CFLarsen]

As far as I know, that definition is both the historical and contemporary understanding, Claus. Guess times haven't changed that much, after all.

So, when you point to contemporary understandings of the word "militia", you are right, but when I do the same, I am wrong?

Gotcha!

 

[shanek]

Then, perhaps I misunderstand. Where else do the basic documents of the USA mention the right to bear arms? The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.

As has been pointed out to you several times, Article I Section 8 is a list of 18 things the government is allowed to do. If it's not in this list, and it's not in an amendment, the Federal government cannot do it.

So, let me once again ask one of the many questions you have avoided answering: Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the power to restrict the ownership of firearms by private individuals?

 

[Ed]

Then, perhaps I misunderstand. Where else do the basic documents of the USA mention the right to bear arms? The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.

The various writings of the founders. It is clear. That is what I and Shanek have been saying. If you want to understand the Constitution the way a Justice would, you have to go back to those things.

 

[Luke T.]

So, when you point to contemporary understandings of the word "militia", you are right, but when I do the same, I am wrong?

Gotcha!

What are you talking about?

 

[c0rbin]

No, not with "probable cause". They can search your home, for no reason whatsoever.

Is this part of your agenda?

 

[c0rbin]

And you seem to have no problem, when the Jesusfreak is inhabiting the White House as well.

Agenda?

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's settle this nonsense right here and now:

Claus, what is a right, and why do you need it? You've lived in America (so you say), so try to keep it in context. Just this once, for us "Jesus Freaks."

Answer my question.

You are in no position to demand answers, unless you give them yourself.

Unless you want to claim some form of superiority, based on your Americaness.

Just say the word, so we know where we stand.

 

[Ed]

As has been pointed out to you several times, Article I Section 8 is a list of 18 things the government is allowed to do. If it's not in this list, and it's not in an amendment, the Federal government cannot do it.

Shanek is giving the short, accurate answer. To understand the "why" go to the writings.

 

[shanek]

This is what I don't understand: The US has absolutely no qualms about telling others how to run their countries,

Where are we doing that?

Fascinating, this deification of mere mortals. Jefferson? A slave owner.

By heredity and dowery. He worked like mad his whole life to free his slaves and hit roadblock after roadblock. At literally the last possible moment, he tried freeing them in his will, which was the only way George Washington could do so, but alas by the time Jefferson died they had closed even that loophole.

They were humans, not worthy of being worshipped.

No one's saying worship them. But is understanding the history of what happened really so much to ask of you?

Then, the courts step in.

Ah, like they did to protect Dudley Hiibel? Oh, wait, they didn't! They ruled against him.

Is there a problem somewhere?

Yes: when the courts aren't doing their jobs.

Actually, I haven't really seen any arguments that I don't understand American culture. I quite possibly understand it too well.

You have shown a complete lack of understanding of American history, so how can you claim to have shown knowledge of American culture as well?