1 - 10 Next
You don't. I've read what you write. You're lucky if you can feed yourself.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 1:23 PM
"The primary purpose ofthe 2nd Amendment was/is to protect the people from being subjugated by the government." Absolutely. Which is why that's exactly what I said.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 1:21 PM
Sorry: meant to respond to your 2nd quote with: I agree.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 1:20 PM
How come it's always your "classmate's sister" or your "mother's half-brother" or your "dwarf housekeeper's three-legged hamster" and never your cousin or your friend or your barber or something NORMAL? I mean, does EVERYONE's classmate have a half-sister in China?
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 1:17 PM
The verbiage about a militia is obviously merely explanatory preamble. ...well, YEAH, but explanatory preambles are not without purpose. This one definitely DOES explain the thinking behind the part after the comma. But the Militia and the People are opposing elements in the argument. The following words are the operative words: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 1:04 PM
"The Minutemen were a "militia". And they didn't get their muskets as gov't issue" It doesn't matter. When they took up arms against the British, they were an armed force of the Government. They were the well regulated militia. And the People, clearly a different entity as the Amendment is written, were everyone else.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 1:02 PM
Doug, those are good points. I understand the point of the amendment, and fully agree that it DOES in fact grant an individual right to bear arms. But I weigh that against what our gun owning society has become. And I look at other societies with more restrictive gun laws and, in those which are free, like Canada, Britain, France, Belgium, I see a very negligible chance that their militaries will take over the Government. And their murder rate, contrary to the position that laws won't keep murders from happening, are much lower than ours. Either the laws work, or we are a singularly f'd up country.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 12:52 PM
First, some facts. The musket was NOT "the most powerful weapon." That would have been cannon, and several militias at the time DID in fact own and use cannons. I thought of that, and almost included it, but it was so silly I left it out. Unfortunately, your interpretation of "militia" using the modern definition makes your entire argument wrong. The militia, as referred to in the Constitution, is the Army; the "people" are civilians. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain an armed civilian populace against an armed Government. Canons were powerful, but because they were less mobile, were not the most powerful weapon of the time. Either way, I'm not aware of any individuals today who own nuclear weapons.
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 12:48 PM
"Second, your paraphrase is way, way off base. You misread it to mean almost the opposite of what it says" Actually, my interpretation is exactly correct. And I've explained it. But that pales in comparison to your brilliant response of "nun-UHH".
In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

NigerYellowcake Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 12:43 PM
Wise one, you're making my point for me. I don't know the history of what happened at Waco as well as you do, but assuming you're right, the Davidians never had a chance. If they HADN'T let the first agents go, the same thing would have happened. Their right to bear arms meant precisely NOTHING against a modern military (the FBI being domestic military in this instance). It's a nice thought, to think that if the Govt gets too uppity you can just refuse and fight back, but for all practical purposes, it's meaningless.
1 - 10 Next