tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post1880999422583636873..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: A Challenge to Laci the DogAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-65106056734038140522011-05-19T11:41:56.770+02:002011-05-19T11:41:56.770+02:00I think Jadegold should be very careful. Although...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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30626908789019629352011-05-19T00:08:27.589+02:002011-05-19T00:08:27.589+02:00Sic 'em Laci!
I like everyone, just some more...Sic 'em Laci!<br /><br />I like everyone, just some more than others, LOL!dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9508951623046328502011-05-18T19:06:58.806+02:002011-05-18T19:06:58.806+02:00Try Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 as your answer...Try Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 as your answer. It's a historical point, but Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:<br /><i>every 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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Only an idiot from the 21st Century would need to have that explained to them.<br /><br />Likewise, if someone has a moral conviction against violence, that would preclude the government's forcing them to bear arms as this <br />proposed draft of the Second Amendment states:<br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />BTW, the Congressional debates for the Second Amendment are rather short and can be read <a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs6.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Does that answer your question, or do I need to dumb down my answer further so you can understand it?Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-83835816818778392632011-05-18T15:22:08.365+02:002011-05-18T15:22:08.365+02:00And why would religious convictions prevent the .g...And why would religious convictions prevent the .gov from forcing firearms on the people.....<br /><br />If the 2nd does not protect the ownership of firearms how could the first protect the freedom of religion?Laci's addled reasoninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-33353986384010637392011-05-18T15:18:43.994+02:002011-05-18T15:18:43.994+02:00And you never answered my question earlier why it ...And you never answered my question earlier why it was not written this way.....<br /><br />A 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.<br /><br />Wouldn't that promote your argument better?<br /><br />But just keep ignoring the whole sentence, just keep pounding on that partial phrase..... your deep intellect is showing.....Laci's steaming pile of intellect....http://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-39892650717349968652011-05-18T15:06:24.164+02:002011-05-18T15:06:24.164+02:00Laci the Chinese Crested said...
I concede.Bu...<b><i>Laci the Chinese Crested said...<br /><br /> I 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.</i></b><br /><br />Funny that 5 SCJotUS are the only opinions that mattered, and the bleating of some moronic statist were not even considered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23570830482231454462011-05-18T15:00:27.586+02:002011-05-18T15:00:27.586+02:00Jade,
I dislike you more if that makes you feel a...Jade,<br /><br />I dislike you more if that makes you feel any better. :)FatWhiteManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08946272184958991397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90344753269012532542011-05-18T13:43:37.777+02:002011-05-18T13:43:37.777+02:00I concede.
But I must be annoying as hell to thes...I concede.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But, I am not fixated on gun control.<br /><br />And the Second Amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership.<br /><br />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).Laci the Chinese Crestedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371541369012938298noreply@blogger.com