"Between you and Laci, I don’t know who I dislike the most.[sic]"
I, for one, will not let this stand. I maintain Mssr. Butts shall--indeed, must dislike me more.
The challenge, should Laci accept, is: at the time of one month from now, Patrick Butts shall demonstrably dislike me more. We shall allow Patrick Butts to decide the outcome of this contest. Should Mr. Butts decline to adjudicate this contest, readers of this blog shall determine the victor.
Stakes: One (1) bottle:
I concede.
ReplyDeleteBut I must be annoying as hell to these people pointing out that the "Standard Model" interpretation of the Second Amendment is an intellectually bankrupt, historically inaccurate, and legally wrong interpretation.
But, I am not fixated on gun control.
And the Second Amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership.
It's amusing when these goofs realise that not only can the government ban guns, but they can also force people to own guns (religious convictions not preventing that).
Jade,
ReplyDeleteI dislike you more if that makes you feel any better. :)
Laci the Chinese Crested said...
ReplyDeleteI concede.But I must be annoying as hell to these people pointing out that the "Standard Model" interpretation of the Second Amendment is an intellectually bankrupt, historically inaccurate, and legally wrong interpretation.
Funny that 5 SCJotUS are the only opinions that mattered, and the bleating of some moronic statist were not even considered.
And you never answered my question earlier why it was not written this way.....
ReplyDeleteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free People, the right of the State to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Wouldn't that promote your argument better?
But just keep ignoring the whole sentence, just keep pounding on that partial phrase..... your deep intellect is showing.....
And why would religious convictions prevent the .gov from forcing firearms on the people.....
ReplyDeleteIf the 2nd does not protect the ownership of firearms how could the first protect the freedom of religion?
Try Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 as your answer. It's a historical point, but Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:
ReplyDeleteevery State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Since the pro-Militia forces (Anti-Federalists) wanted to strenghten the Articles of Confederation, your construction would be superfluous. It was pretty much a given that the Militias were controlled by the State.
Only an idiot from the 21st Century would need to have that explained to them.
Likewise, if someone has a moral conviction against violence, that would preclude the government's forcing them to bear arms as this
proposed draft of the Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
BTW, the Congressional debates for the Second Amendment are rather short and can be read here.
Does that answer your question, or do I need to dumb down my answer further so you can understand it?
Sic 'em Laci!
ReplyDeleteI like everyone, just some more than others, LOL!
I think Jadegold should be very careful. Although Laci has claimed to concede, I would be very careful not to count my chickens before they hatch. In fact, if I were Jadegold, I'd turn up the heat just a tiny bit. It'll not only keep out commenters on their toes but perhaps ensure victory in this unusual challenge a month from now.
ReplyDelete