- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obama doesn't even wear glasses.How could you possible equate Ghandi with Obama.
Obama doesn't even wear glasses.How could you possible equate Ghandi with Obama.
Well, there is. It's actually illegal to send a state Guard unit to a foreign country to engage in offensive warfare, because a Governor does not have the authority to attack a country. So what happens now, and you can thank Vietnam for this, is when you enlist in your state Guard, you also simultaneously enlist in The National Guard Of The United States, a Federal outfit answering to the President.I don't think there should be any possibility of Fed interference. The local militia should be exactly that, local - and for defense only.
It's a fundamental, directly relating to life, liberty and property.
That's a big reason why I want people to be forced to belong to the Guard...so that if you don't want to personally visit a foreign war, maybe you'll stop voting in people who take us to them.Showing how those units were used in foreign wars is exactly why I don't want the forced militia to be under Fed control.
I wasn't disagreeing with what you had said.Well, there is. It's actually illegal to send a state Guard unit to a foreign country to engage in offensive warfare, because a Governor does not have the authority to attack a country. So what happens now, and you can thank Vietnam for this, is when you enlist in your state Guard, you also simultaneously enlist in The National Guard Of The United States, a Federal outfit answering to the President.
Today most of our forces in Afghanistan are Guard units, but that doesn't keep the other branches from talking **** anyway.
It's a right for a militia to do so.
That wasn't what I had in mind at all, then. I don't want the forced state militia to be part of the National Guard.That's a big reason why I want people to be forced to belong to the Guard...so that if you don't want to personally visit a foreign war, maybe you'll stop voting in people who take us to them.
The state guard is not part of the federal Guard...it IS the federal Guard.That wasn't what I had in mind at all, then. I don't want the forced state militia to be part of the National Guard.
I didn't say "state guard", I said "state militia", meaning a militia where participation is mandatory and that currently does not exist. I have no wish to see people forced to join the National Guard, since they can be forced into service for the Fed and, at least here, often not kept local for training. I don't know how much more plain I can be.The state guard is not part of the federal Guard...it IS the federal Guard.
It's a right for a militia to do so.
Oh, I get it. You're a "Sons of Anarchy" kinda guy whose definition of his sexual abilities is through the size of his gun.
A civil right is defined as such:
"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."
Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
What a pile of horse puckey!
I hear people whine about the NRA and how some are subservient to the NRA's wishes. They have it backwards, the NRA is subservient to the free people of the US and they serve our needs.
Nothing like a fresh deer or wild hog in the freezer to subsidize our annual meals.
Apart from your undoubted ability to murder children and discriminate on grounds of 'race', name me one way in which you peasants are free that we aren't. Your Eighteenth Century drivel is getting smelly and mouldy as your masters reduce your standard of living, serf.This from an “obedient serf” in a land where nearly all people are serfs and subjects, and who has no idea what it means to be a true citizen, as we are over here.
Apart from your undoubted ability to murder children and discriminate on grounds of 'race', name me one way in which you peasants are free that we aren't. Your Eighteenth Century drivel is getting smelly and mouldy as your masters reduce your standard of living, serf.
A civil right is defined as such:
"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."
Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Are you saying bombs couldn't be assembled and transported into schools in the UK?!? LOL! You should know better than that. Yes, we have our issue with violence but guns don't really make it worse and they sure aren't the problem.Apart from your undoubted ability to murder children and discriminate on grounds of 'race', name me one way in which you peasants are free that we aren't. Your Eighteenth Century drivel is getting smelly and mouldy as your masters reduce your standard of living, serf.
A civil right is defined as such:
"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."
Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
The right to own firearms is not merely a right by virtue of citizenship, it is a human right.
Incidentally, you are using the phrase "keep and bear arms" ahistorically. Similar to the phrase "hue and cry," leep and bear arms" was originally a legal term of art that applied to military service, and does not relate to the right of an individual to own and use weapons. The right to "keep and bear arms," as it was originally meant by the Framers, is an obsolete notion that has been superseded by the fundamental right of gun ownership by all people when the second amendment was changed by the Supreme Court in Heller.
you seem rather bitter. guess what-we are Americans, we really don't care about the Aesop Fox syndrome from across the pond
Are you saying bombs couldn't be assembled and transported into schools in the UK?!? LOL! You should know better than that. Yes, we have our issue with violence but guns don't really make it worse and they sure aren't the problem.
Nobody cares twopence about you - it is the children you gunmen murder and help to murder we care about.
Moderator's Warning: |
Next person to attempt to label the people they're debating with "nuts" by trying to hide it under the guise of a generic wide spread label is going to get thread banned |