Militia question 1

CFLarsen said:
I am simply tired of shanek's disingenious way of debating, that's all. I refuse to dance to his tune, so he begins to throw out wild accusations instead.

They aren't "wild accusations," Claus. You ARE lying, you ARE refusing to provide evidence, you ARE evading answering direct questions asked of you. JUST LIKE you accuse the woo-woos of doing.

I'm tired of being called a liar, when I am clearly not.

You clearly are, and I have exposed many of your lies. You simply will not take responsibility for your own words.

I'm tired of being called a woowoo, when I am clearly not.

If it looks like a woo-woo, walks like a woo-woo, smells like a woo-woo, and quacks like a woo-woo, it's a woo-woo.
 
CFLarsen said:
We have seen a couple of definitions of what "regulated" means, as well as who regulates this militia. Which is also a term disputed.

See, this is another example of your woo-wooism. It ISN'T disputed. The "well-regulated" language, taken STRAIGHT from the Articles of Confederation, means "sufficiently armed and accoutered." Who regulates the militia is explicitly spelled out in Article I Section 8 Clause 16. Pretending otherwise is just pigheadedness.
 
shanek said:
See, this is another example of your woo-wooism. It ISN'T disputed. The "well-regulated" language, taken STRAIGHT from the Articles of Confederation, means "sufficiently armed and accoutered." Who regulates the militia is explicitly spelled out in Article I Section 8 Clause 16. Pretending otherwise is just pigheadedness.

You know, I'm caring less and less these days about the dismay Eurpoeans feel when they try to understand the underpinnings of American culture. It astounds me that another thread about what the meaning of the second amendment is has grown to four pages at this late date.

Claus, it is what it is. If you can't read the plain language explaining it, try getting closer to the page by stepping off that ivory tower you share with the rest of the EU.
 
Jocko said:
You know, I'm caring less and less these days about the dismay Eurpoeans feel when they try to understand the underpinnings of American culture. It astounds me that another thread about what the meaning of the second amendment is has grown to four pages at this late date.

Which emphasizes the need for such a thread. Not even the Americans agree.

Jocko said:
Claus, it is what it is. If you can't read the plain language explaining it, try getting closer to the page by stepping off that ivory tower you share with the rest of the EU.

Highly ironic.
 
CFLarsen said:
Which emphasizes the need for such a thread. Not even the Americans agree.

No, it occurs to me that most responses here only disagree in their chosen method of explaining something completely obvious to you, who is obviously intent on proving everyone in America wrong... even if you have to redefine half the dictionary to do it.

Tell me, what about Shane's citation escapes you?



Highly ironic.

How's the view from up there, Claus? Things look pretty clear down here.
 
CFLarsen said:
Which emphasizes the need for such a thread. Not even the Americans agree.

The fact that disagreement exists means nothing. Facts are facts, and in this case, they speak for themselves. The founder's intentions are clear.
 
Tony said:
The fact that disagreement exists means nothing. Facts are facts, and in this case, they speak for themselves. The founder's intentions are clear.

Yep. It appears to me that gun control advocates are not so much proposing a different interpretation of the founders' intent, but are merely suggesting the founders be overruled based on modern realities.
 
Luke T. said:
Yep. It appears to me that gun control advocates are not so much proposing a different interpretation of the founders' intent, but are merely suggesting the founders be overruled based on modern realities.

I'll also say that they're suggesting that the founders be aconstitutionally overruled in the guise of advocating a "different" interpretation.
 
Jocko said:
You know, I'm caring less and less these days about the dismay Eurpoeans feel when they try to understand the underpinnings of American culture. It astounds me that another thread about what the meaning of the second amendment is has grown to four pages at this late date.

Claus, it is what it is. If you can't read the plain language explaining it, try getting closer to the page by stepping off that ivory tower you share with the rest of the EU.

This reminds me of a passage in Democracy in America which may explain some things.

The English and the Americans have retained the law of precedents; that is to say, they continue to found their legal opinions and the decisions of their courts upon the opinions and the decisions of their forefathers. In the mind of an English or American lawyer a taste and a reverence for what is old is almost always united to a love of regular and lawful proceedings.

This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legal profession and upon the general course of society. The English and American lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate inquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an English or an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others, and how little he alludes to his own; whilst the reverse occurs in France. There the most trifling litigation is never conducted without the introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel employed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order to obtain a perch of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his own opinion, and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this subjection of thought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timid habits and more sluggish inclinations in England and America than in France.

The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but they can be read by every one; nothing, on the other hand, can be more impenetrable to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The indispensable want of legal assistance which is felt in England and in the United States, and the high opinion which is generally entertained of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and more from the people, and to place it in a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants of Egypt, for, like them, he is the sole interpreter of an occult science.

Does this fit? :)
 
Luke T. said:
This reminds me of a passage in Democracy in America which may explain some things.



Does this fit? :)

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? :D

I think Claus has as much to gain from this primer as I did. Let's see if it sticks.
 
Jocko said:
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? :D

I think Claus has as much to gain from this primer as I did. Let's see if it sticks.

[sidebar]

It occurs to me the American obsession with precedents may explain the passion behind every Moderation issue of this forum. :D

[/sidebar]
 
Denmark has legislation that has roots several hundreds of years back. The first "Constitution" was from the 12th century.

Just because there is precedence does not mean legislation should never be changed. Especially if a new reality emerges.

Try again.
 
CFLarsen said:
Denmark has legislation that has roots several hundreds of years back. The first "Constitution" was from the 12th century.

Just because there is precedence does not mean legislation should never be changed. Especially if a new reality emerges.

Try again.

That's the angle I suggested above about gun control advocates. They are not really suggesting their interpretation of the precedents support their point of view. Their point of view is that the precedents should be overruled based on modern realities.
 
CFLarsen said:
Show me one - 1 - example of a lie of mine.

Just one.

In the "How might the Second Amendment be reworded?" thread, you said I hate my country. This was a LIE. If it wasn't, all you have to do is find a quote of me saying this.

Want another?
 
shanek said:
In the "How might the Second Amendment be reworded?" thread, you said I hate my country. This was a LIE. If it wasn't, all you have to do is find a quote of me saying this.

This one, I take it:

CFLarsen said:
Speaking for myself only, I don't. What I don't understand is, how can this be provided for by the very same government that the gun advocates hate so much?

First of all, it is an opinion, not a fact. You have tried this before, but still need to understand that opinions are not facts. I might be mistaken, but it doesn't make me a liar.

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 - heck, you have even joined a political party that wants government to disappear as much as possible. And judging from your very emotional (let's be kind and call it that) defense of your political ideas, I think it is fair to opine that you hate the government.

If I said: "I would love to go to the Moon", then that would be an opinion.

If I said: "I have been to the Moon", then that would be a lie.

Do you understand now?

shanek said:
Want another?

No, just one. Try again.
 
CFLarsen said:
Denmark has legislation that has roots several hundreds of years back. The first "Constitution" was from the 12th century.

Just because there is precedence does not mean legislation should never be changed. Especially if a new reality emerges.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong about the meaning of the second amendment.
 
CFLarsen said:
I have done no such thing.

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 said:
Denmark has legislation that has roots several hundreds of years back. The first "Constitution" was from the 12th century.

Just because there is precedence does not mean legislation should never be changed. Especially if a new reality emerges.

Try again.

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.
 

Back
Top Bottom