Lone Weasel- Choke On A Doughnut
Buck Mulligan
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Sam Buckland
but "Zepp" and Milt "I outrun shotgun blasts" Shook have been
lying their butts off about how "that's what we meant all
along" and "the decision doesn't REALLY mean what it says"
for quite some time. It's kinda funny...
Buck Mulligan
Milt sez:
:This was a poorly-written decision,
meaning it doesn't agree with his twisted view of the world
:that twists the Constitution into a knot, and will FORCE
:future Supreme Courts to have to clarify. This
:isn't over at all.
Sounds like Milt's gonna go down fighting, heh heh.
David Moffitt
"Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:h17b64ta47ratst2m...@4ax.com...
%%%% Lonely weasels has been silent. I wonder if he committed suicide or is
he still crying in his Ripple?
GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
|
|
Bobby Jacobs
> In article <h17b64ta47ratst2m...@4ax.com>,
I hope they wore gloves so they didn't get his cooties on them.
The Lone Weasel
<bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No it doesn't.
[begin excerpt]
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the
Congress power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With
obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration
and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be
interpreted and applied with that end in view.
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
[end excerpt]
Did Tony Baloney cite this language from Miller, Fungloon?
Also, Scalia said nothing about Maryland v. US out of consideration,
so this still stands:
[begin excerpt]
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the
States by Art. I, section 8, cl. 15, 16, of the
Constitution. [footnote 8] It has only been in recent years
that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable
of being assimilated with ease into the regular military
establishment of the United States. From the days of the
Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World
War I, the various militias embodied the concept-of a
citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training
necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve
force of the United States Armed Forces. [footnote 9]
_____
8. "The Congress shall have Power ...
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
reserving to the States respectively the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
9. See generally, Wiener, The Militia Clause of the
Constitution, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 181 (1940).
Maryland v United States (1965)
[end excerpt]
So the National Guard is still the well-regulated militia of the
Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cl 15-16...
And gun registration as well as strict gun regulation is still legal
as hell - so says your hero Justass Scalia...
Suckers...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Sam Buckland
> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
POINT PROVEN!!
The Lone Weasel
It's slopwork. Some truth-seeking historian will correct Scalia's
numerous lies and inaccuracies which will lead to his professional
embarrassment and his resignation or impeachment.
Don't hang your hat on a turd, sonny...
Sam Buckland
> On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>>> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>>>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>>>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>>> No it doesn't.
>> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>
> It's slopwork.
It's the LAW, cupcake...
POINT PROVEN!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> >>> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
> >>> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> >>>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> >>>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> >>> No it doesn't.
> >> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>
> > It's slopwork.
>
> It's the LAW, cupcake...
Where, Mr. Fuckhand? Not in Texas. Or California. Or Illinois. DC
is a federal district. The several states are not federal districts.
Next loon please.
David Moffitt
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08c16fa3-ec94-49ac...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
> > <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> >> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> >> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
It's slopwork.
%%%% It's the law. How does that crow taste rodent?
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
David Moffitt
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
No it doesn't.
%%%% I see you have recovered from the drunk you pitched from getting your
ass kicked. How has your crow pie been tasting?
---------------> superceded old information deleted <-----------------------
And gun registration as well as strict gun regulation is still legal
as hell - so says your hero Justass Scalia...
Suckers...
%%%% Guns are only being registered in a small number of places. Expect that
to change quickly. Several places have dropped their registration and
banning schemes. How did you say your crow was tasting lonely rodent?
ROTFLMAO!
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
Sam Buckland
> On Jun 30, 7:36 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>>>>> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>>>>>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>>>>>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>>> It's slopwork.
>> It's the LAW, cupcake...
>
> Where, Mr. Fuckhand? Not in Texas. Or California. Or Illinois. DC
> is a federal district. The several states are not federal districts.
In the *US*, Loon...
POINT PROVEN!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
Sam Buckland
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c139614b-e928-4a15...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> %%%% I see you have recovered from the drunk you pitched from getting your
> ass kicked.
I'd take issue with that... have you seen the rubbish he's
posting??
LOL!!
The Lone Weasel
twits.org> wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:08c16fa3-ec94-49ac-
>> It's slopwork.
>
>It's the law.
Just in DC. Scalia doesn't make gun law in Texas, Muppetto, because
Texas is not a federal district.
When you get a state case to the US Supreme Court we'll have Scalia
impeached and replaced with a real moderate like BILL CLINTON.
n...@gntbcr.com
<lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
>No it doesn't.
Oooh, looky. The loon sneasel has crawled from beneath his rock after
hiding after the TOTAL LOSS he suffered at the hands of the U.S.
SUPREME COURT!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Tell me loon, does your dicta trump the RULING OF THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT? Or has your mental condition progressed to the point where YOU
think you are a part of the Court?
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
POINT PROVEN!
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH
The Lone Weasel
twits.org> wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:c139614b-e928-4a15...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>
> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> > firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> > traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> %%%% I see you have recovered from the drunk you pitched from getting your
> ass kicked. How has your crow pie been tasting?
>
> ---------------> superceded old information deleted <-----------------------
>
> And gun registration as well as strict gun regulation is still legal
> as hell - so says your hero Justass Scalia...
>
> Suckers...
>
> %%%% Guns are only being registered in a small number of places. Expect that
> to change quickly.
Yeah, Scalia said nothing about national gun registration, did he Mop-
mop? And he said nothing about Maryland v. US which says the National
Guard is the militia of the Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls
15-16...
Suckers.
n...@gntbcr.com
<lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's slopwork.
>>
>>It's the law.
>
>Just in DC. Scalia doesn't make gun law in Texas, Muppetto, because
>Texas is not a federal district.
>
>When you get a state case to the US Supreme Court we'll have Scalia
>impeached and replaced with a real moderate like BILL CLINTON.
HA HA HA HA HA
Here, loon, let me rub your nose in it some more. I especially like
this one;
Obviously, the same test could not be used to
evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific,
enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against
double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear
arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152,
n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the
presumption
of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by
rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be
within
a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first
ten
amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right to
keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would
be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on
irrational laws, and would have no effect.
Know what that means loon? It MEANS that regulation of a SPECIFIC
ENUMERATED RIGHT, like the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, MUST pass
"strict scrutiny". It also means you have a LIFETIME of getting your
ass kicked before you.
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
POINT PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Moffitt
"Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g4c50p$b18$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
%%%% I have seen it for years. He always said that the 2nd is a collective
right and you have to be a member of the militia to have firearms. He was
bitch slapped big time by the SCOTUS for both of his positions. Next he will
say that the decision is not law or lawful. ":o)
"The defensive firearm is a special-purpose piece of safety rescue
equipment, designed to extricate a person... from the immediate threat of
savagely violent crime. It is like the fire extinguisher.... Neither piece
of equipment will do you any good if you don't know how to use it or are not
psychologically prepared to face danger with that gear in your trained hands
in a terror situation." -- Massad Ayoob, Handgun Primer
David Moffitt
On Jun 30, 9:04 pm, "David Moffitt" <dmoff...@stomping-leftist-
twits.org> wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:08c16fa3-ec94-49ac-
>> It's slopwork.
>
>It's the law.
Just in DC.
%%%% All over America lonely rodent.
Scalia doesn't make gun law in Texas, Muppetto, because
Texas is not a federal district.
%%%% It's part of America lonely rodent.
When you get a state case to the US Supreme Court we'll have Scalia
impeached and replaced with a real moderate like BILL CLINTON.
%%%% How's the crow pie taste lonely rodent?
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
Felix D.
On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
> > <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> >> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> >> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
It's slopwork. Some truth-seeking historian will correct Scalia's
numerous lies and inaccuracies which will lead to his professional
embarrassment and his resignation or impeachment.
************************
Lee, this is whistling past the graveyard at it's finest.
Accept it: there is no such thing as a collective right and the one place
you were hoping for one was wrong.
David Moffitt
On Jun 30, 9:02 pm, "David Moffitt" <dmoff...@stomping-leftist-
twits.org> wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:c139614b-e928-4a15...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>
> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> > firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> > traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> %%%% I see you have recovered from the drunk you pitched from getting your
> ass kicked. How has your crow pie been tasting?
>
> ---------------> superceded old information deleted
> <-----------------------
>
> And gun registration as well as strict gun regulation is still legal
> as hell - so says your hero Justass Scalia...
>
> Suckers...
>
> %%%% Guns are only being registered in a small number of places. Expect
> that
> to change quickly.
Yeah, Scalia said nothing about national gun registration, did he Mop-
mop?
%%%% Won't happen rodent.
And he said nothing about Maryland v. US which says the National
Guard is the militia of the Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls
15-16...
%%%% Superceded.
Suckers.
%%%% How's the crow tasting lonely rodent?
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
--
Felix D.
Yeah, Scalia said nothing about national gun registration, did he Mop-
mop? And he said nothing about Maryland v. US which says the National
Guard is the militia of the Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls
15-16...
**************************
Lee, one more time in case you missed it, this time with highlights so you
won't miss it:
From the opinion:
"The Second Amendment protects *an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for
The Lone Weasel
>
> >>It's the law.
>
> >Just in DC. Scalia doesn't make gun law in Texas, Muppetto, because
> >Texas is not a federal district.
>
> >When you get a state case to the US Supreme Court we'll have Scalia
> >impeached and replaced with a real moderate like BILL CLINTON.
>
> HA HA HA HA HA
>
> Here, loon, let me rub your nose in it some more. I especially like
> this one;
>
> Obviously, the same test could not be used to
> evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific,
> enumerated right
"We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition
on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates
the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
Scalia hasn't actually pontificated about any of the several states
because they are not material to the DC case. So anything Tony said
about the several states is blather and hooey.
It's Garwood's dicta all over again. eh lil gunloon?
Next please.
The Lone Weasel
twits.org> wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:52336154-e736-4ffe...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Nope. Scalia hasn't addressed a case about one of the several states,
just a Federal District which really Congress has more power over than
the Supreme Court.
Congress doesn't have to listen to anything Tont Scalia says about the
fucking District of Columbia.
Congress can impeach Scalia and replace him with a moderate who
respects the law.
"The Congress Shall Have Power To exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of
Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful
Buildings..." Art I Sect 8 Clause 17
Wait & see, Muppet...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
David Moffitt
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b968b409-8fa6-4b9b...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>> It's slopwork.
>
> >>It's the law.
>
> >Just in DC. Scalia doesn't make gun law in Texas, Muppetto, because
> >Texas is not a federal district.
>
> >When you get a state case to the US Supreme Court we'll have Scalia
> >impeached and replaced with a real moderate like BILL CLINTON.
>
> HA HA HA HA HA
>
> Here, loon, let me rub your nose in it some more. I especially like
> this one;
>
> Obviously, the same test could not be used to
> evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific,
> enumerated right
"We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition
on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates
the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
Scalia hasn't actually pontificated about any of the several states
%%%% There are no states that ban firearms lonely rodent.
because they are not material to the DC case. So anything Tony said
about the several states is blather and hooey.
%%%% What several states lonely rodent?
It's Garwood's dicta all over again. eh lil gunloon?
Next please.
%%%% How's the crow taste?
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
--
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:52336154-e736-4ffe...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Again, where does Scalia say the Second Amendment has nothing to do
with the militia? What he does is split the amendment in two parts,
the first part he says has no relationship to the second.
In fact, the Second Amendment is one sentence which says, Because a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people t keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The word "individual" doesn't not appear in the text of this
amendment.
Scalia's opinion is infested with numerous errors of historical and
legal fact which will still have not been applied to the states, just
to a federal district. And this bundle of NRA disinformation won't be
applied to the states because the governors won't stand for it. They
need the National Guard lots more than they need the NRfuckingA.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
So how much did you pay for this bullshit, Felix the Rat?
Benj
> Just in DC. Scalia doesn't make gun law in Texas, Muppetto, because
> Texas is not a federal district.
>
> When you get a state case to the US Supreme Court we'll have Scalia
> impeached and replaced with a real moderate like BILL CLINTON.
Oh lookee! Sleasel is back and still eating doughnuts and still living
in his leftist dream world where laws and courts only mean what he
dreams they mean! "The law is whatever I SAY it is", says Sleasel.
He makes high sounding predictions that never come true and just makes
up law as he goes along.
His opinions are nuts and not worth a second of anybody's time. Don't
bother with him.
He's not even worth a good laugh.
Benj
> Nope. Scalia hasn't addressed a case about one of the several states,
> just a Federal District which really Congress has more power over than
> the Supreme Court.
>
> Congress doesn't have to listen to anything Tont Scalia says about the
> fucking District of Columbia.
>
> Congress can impeach Scalia and replace him with a moderate who
> respects the law.
>
> "The Congress Shall Have Power To exercise
> exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
> over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
> by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of
> Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
> States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
> purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
> which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
> Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful
> Buildings..." Art I Sect 8 Clause 17
>
> Wait & see, Muppet...
>
> Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
Absolutely! The SCOTUS decision is totally null and void because
Congress has the power to impose ANY kind of law in the District. They
can totally suspend the constitution and impose a police state
dictatorship as Lee wants if they so choose (and wait and see, they
may soon answer his wishes).
Therefore the Heller case decision is totally moot because the
Constitution does NOT apply in the District if Congress says it
doesn't! And because the case was about the District, it simply does
not apply to the several states!
The bottom line is very clear. The Second Amendment is STILL a
"collective right" which only guarantees that those in the standing
army can keep and bear (under the strict scrutiny of the government)
arms. Everyone else can be disarmed by the government at will. It
means that all this opinion means nothing in DC and nothing elsewhere
either. The whole opinion is invalid and therefore can be legally
totally ignored by all big city mayors. Furthermore, Scalia can be
impeached once a nice leftist regime is in the White House and the
whole situation put right as a more Stalinist regime begins a purge of
all those persons engaging in Anti-Sovie.... er... Anti-Amercan
counter-revolutionary activites . Perhaps a little taste of "extreme
questioning" in Gitmo without charges or a lawyer will loosen their
tongues!
And then you will all see The Weasel strutting around in his snappy
Nazi uniform, barking orders and observing the torture saying: "Laugh,
laugh, laugh, laugh, laugh!"
Does this about sum it all up?
Scout
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:fc4c4d79-467a-4f06...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 12:47 am, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nope. Scalia hasn't addressed a case about one of the several states,
>> just a Federal District which really Congress has more power over than
>> the Supreme Court.
>>
>> Congress doesn't have to listen to anything Tont Scalia says about the
>> fucking District of Columbia.
>>
>> Congress can impeach Scalia and replace him with a moderate who
>> respects the law.
>>
>> "The Congress Shall Have Power To exercise
>> exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
>> over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
>> by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of
>> Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
>> States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
>> purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
>> which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
>> Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful
>> Buildings..." Art I Sect 8 Clause 17
>>
>> Wait & see, Muppet...
>>
>> Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
>
> Absolutely! The SCOTUS decision is totally null and void because
> Congress has the power to impose ANY kind of law in the District.
Sorry, but Congress can't violate the terms of the Constitution, and that
includes the Bill of Rights......even in DC.
ubermutant
<n...@gntbcr.com> wrote in message
news:tt5j649c031sbnfhv...@4ax.com...
Took him a couple of days to slither out, but ya seems gerbil-boy has
crawled back out of his own asshole. I think he likes the abuse.
b.
The Lone Weasel
The District of Columbia is not one of the several states. Didn't
they tell you, Mr. Fuckhand?
Did you know the District lacks the power to call out its own National
Guard? Has to ask Congress to call out the Guard for it.
The National Guard is the well-regulated militia of Art I Sect 8 Cl 16
and the Second Amendment.
The Founders say so. Tiny Tony Scalia's opinion especially as a so-
called "originalist" is wildly dishonest or worse - studiously
ignorant.
Next.
Sam Buckland
> ignorant.
>
Speaking of "studiously ignorant"... "The National Guard is the
well-regulated militia of Art I"
POINT PROVEN!!!
LOL!!
The Lone Weasel
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:08c16fa3-ec94-49ac-
> > >> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
> > >> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
> > >> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
> > > No it doesn't.
>
> > Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>
> It's slopwork. Some truth-seeking historian will correct Scalia's
> numerous lies and inaccuracies which will lead to his professional
> embarrassment and his resignation or impeachment.
> >Lee, this is whistling past the graveyard at it's finest.
>
> >Accept it: there is no such thing as a collective right and the one place
> >you were hoping for one was wrong.
First, who says there's no such thing as a collective right? You
still haven't explained how your definition of "the people" as always
individuals fits into Tenth Amendment powers; unless you're talking
about dictators.
Second, here's the full scope of DC v. Heller's jurisdiction:
"We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition
on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates
the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
So says Tony Scalia.
I don't see anything in there about any of the several states.
Guess you need another case to get that done, eh Felix the Rat?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
The Lone Weasel
See Article I, Section 8 Clause 17.
> And because the case was about the District, it simply does
> not apply to the several states!
That's according to Scalia's own writing:
"We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition
on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates
the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
He doesn't say anything about the states except in dicta. You're
probably too young to remember Judge Garwood's dicta in Emerson, and
how the NRA told gunloons it was the end-all court case on the Second
Amendment, and how gunloons learned the hard way that the NRA is a big
liar.
And now you still need another case brought to the Supreme Court. Too
bad!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
The Lone Weasel
and the Second Amendment. See Maryland v. US (1965).
[begin excerpt]
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the
States by Art. I, section 8, cl. 15, 16, of the
Constitution. [footnote 8] It has only been in recent years
that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable
of being assimilated with ease into the regular military
establishment of the United States. From the days of the
Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World
War I, the various militias embodied the concept-of a
citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training
necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve
force of the United States Armed Forces. [footnote 9]
_____
8. "The Congress shall have Power ...
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
reserving to the States respectively the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
9. See generally, Wiener, The Militia Clause of the
Constitution, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 181 (1940).
Maryland v United States (1965)
[end excerpt]
There militia in the US Constitution is always the same militia re Art
I Sect 8 Cl 15-16.
The Lone Weasel
wrote:
> Sorry, but Congress can't violate the terms of the Constitution,
Can Congress ban handguns in the Capitol Building - yes or no?
David Moffitt
"The Lone Weasel" <lee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c8a5bbbc-0475-47c6...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
%%%% Laughing to keep from crying huh lonely rodent. How's the crow pie
tasting?
"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury
David Moffitt
David Moffitt
Nope.
%%%% Yep. It's the law. How's the crow pie taste?
"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!"
"Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury
Scalia hasn't addressed a case about one of the several states,
Wayne
On Jun 30, 9:32 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> > On Jun 30, 7:36 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> >>> On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>> >>>>> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> >>>>>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm
>> >>>>>> for
>> >>>>>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
>> >>>>>> home.
>> >>>>> No it doesn't.
>> >>>> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>> >>> It's slopwork.
>> >> It's the LAW, cupcake...
>>
>> > Where, Mr. Fuckhand? Not in Texas. Or California. Or Illinois. DC
>> > is a federal district. The several states are not federal districts.
>>
>> In the *US*, Loon...
>
>The District of Columbia is not one of the several states. Didn't
>they tell you, Mr. Fuckhand?
>
>Yours truly,
>
>The Lone Weasel
Excellent. With the Heller decision, I was afraid we would lose your
postings. Now that you have another angle (Heller doesn't apply in states,
because DC isn't a state), I'm sure we will have regular entertainment.
#
Chris Morton
The Lone Weasel says...
>
>On Jul 1, 4:41=A0am, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, but Congress can't violate the terms of the Constitution,
>
>Can Congress ban handguns in the Capitol Building - yes or no?
Did I mention... YOU LOSE, you fat, crossburning, drunken retard.
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with
210lb. rapists.
Chris Morton
The Lone Weasel says...
>The National Guard is the well-regulated militia of Art I Sect 8 Cl 16
>and the Second Amendment. See Maryland v. US (1965).
Perpich v. DoD, retard.
Read it.
James Beck
At least until the next ruling from one of the states comes in and then
he will SQUEEZE back under that rock and hide for a couple of days;
until he comes up with his next retarded angle to argue about. Which
will happen, this is his life, if he didn't have Usenet to keep him
company, he would die.
The Lone Weasel
> >The National Guard is the well-regulated militia of Art I Sect 8 Cl 16
> >and the Second Amendment. See Maryland v. US (1965).
>
> Perpich v. DoD, retard.
What exactly about the case do you claim changes the state militia's
status as a state militia when it's not mustered into fderal service
you ridiculous drunkard?
Also, should there be any wiggle room at all when installing an 18.5"
Mossberg 500 cylinder bore bead sight barrel on a Maverick 88 that
came with a 28" barrel? Those barrels should be interchangeable
shouldn't they? Why would there be any wiggle room?
Please answer the second question first if you can.
The Lone Weasel
> In article <GLrak.121$al3.67@trnddc06>, mygarbage...@verizon.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "The Lone Weasel" <leeh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actually Scalia invaded state sovereignty issues with this opinion so
I expect states you wouldn't expect to oppose the fully deployed
rightwing kook Scalia to oppose his opinion in Heller. The states
have a great deal to lose by siding with the rightwing on this case.
States like to make and enforce their own weapons laws, now they'll
have the NRA wasting taxpayers' dollars challenging state gun laws
based on Tony Scalia's extraconstitutional stunt.
Also, the states like their National Guard (the well-regulated militia
of the 2nd Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls 15-16) and they will fight
this bad opinion and they'll win. Because by then Scalia will be
shamed to retire or have a health issue or get a better job at
Pepperdine as a full time rightwing propagandist.
Thanks for the horse pistol.
--
Bama Brian
> On Jun 30, 7:36 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>>>>> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>>>>>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>>>>>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>>> It's slopwork.
>> It's the LAW, cupcake...
>
> Where, Mr. Fuckhand? Not in Texas. Or California. Or Illinois. DC
> is a federal district. The several states are not federal districts.
Hello, Jabba. I see your slime trail has increased in its width and
stench.
Are you saying the inhabitants of D.C. are not citizens?
Funny thing about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - they apply
equally to all U.S. soil - including D.C. and even Guantanamo.
So says the SCOTUS; so say we all.
Now go curl up and gibber quietly to yourself.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Felix D.
<playing the violin as Lee refuses to eat a nice plate full of juicy, tasty
CROW>
Felix D.
On Jun 30, 10:49 pm, "Felix D." <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:52336154-e736-4ffe...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yeah, Scalia said nothing about national gun registration, did he Mop-
> mop? And he said nothing about Maryland v. US which says the National
> Guard is the militia of the Second Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls
> 15-16...
>
> **************************
>
> Lee, one more time in case you missed it, this time with highlights so you
> won't miss it:
>
> From the opinion:
>
> "The Second Amendment protects *an individual right to possess a firearm
> unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for
> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Again, where does Scalia say the Second Amendment has nothing to do
with the militia? What he does is split the amendment in two parts,
the first part he says has no relationship to the second.
In fact, the Second Amendment is one sentence which says, Because a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people t keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The word "individual" doesn't not appear in the text of this
amendment.
***************************
Lee, you're getting desperate. I'm going to put you in the kill file for a
bit until you calm down and cease foaming at the brain.
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>> "The Second Amendment protects *an individual right to possess a firearm
>> unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for
>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
>
> Again, where does Scalia say the Second Amendment has nothing to do
> with the militia? What he does is split the amendment in two parts,
> the first part he says has no relationship to the second.
Where does he say it? You just quoted it! "UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A
MILITIA". Here's the original sylabus published by the Supreme court itself:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
The opinion states that the preamble gives a purpose; not a limitation. You can
find all of this on page 1 of this 157 page document. Look where it says
"Held:".
> In fact, the Second Amendment is one sentence which says, Because a
> well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
> the right of the people t keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>
> The word "individual" doesn't not appear in the text of this
> amendment.
So what? It appears in the opinion, which is what now counts. The court spoke.
Nobody else's opinion now matters, especially yours.
POINT PROVEN.
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 7:36 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>> On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland
>>>> <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>>>>>> <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to
>>>>>>> possess a firearm unconnected with service in a
>>>>>>> militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful
>>>>>>> purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>>>> It's slopwork.
>>> It's the LAW, cupcake...
>>
>> Where, Mr. Fuckhand? Not in Texas. Or California. Or
>> Illinois. DC is a federal district. The several states
>> are not federal districts.
>
> Hello, Jabba. I see your slime trail has increased in its
> width and stench.
>
> Are you saying the inhabitants of D.C. are not citizens?
Why do you think citizens of the DC are denied the power to
call out their own DC National Guard, while all other US
citizens who are also citizens of a state have that power, Mr.
Playfool?
> Funny thing about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -
> they apply equally to all U.S. soil
Well first, the US Constitution is all one thing. The
amendments to it are actually articles like Article I, Article
II, you get the idea.
When you constantly treat the first ten amendments as a
different document, you suggest some part of the Constitution
that you like is more important than the rest.
Why would you do a thing like that?
- including D.C. and
> even Guantanamo.
So you'd say the persons imprisoned in Gitmo have a right to
have and use guns?
Sounds like a notion you got from an NRA lawyer. Which one
was it?
> So says the SCOTUS; so say we all.
What you say has always been a wide pile of horseshit, Mr.
Playfool.
This opinion will be overturned by Congress or by the Court
itself when the fascists are kicked off.
The Lone Weasel
>
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:290c0591-c0a2-4a35...@79g2000hsk.googleg
> roups.com... On Jun 30, 10:49 pm, "Felix D."
> <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:52336154-e736-4ffe-a6b7-f78511312bb3@z72g2000hs
>> b.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Yeah, Scalia said nothing about national gun registration,
>> did he Mop- mop? And he said nothing about Maryland v. US
>> which says the National Guard is the militia of the Second
>> Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls 15-16...
>>
>> **************************
>>
>> Lee, one more time in case you missed it, this time with
>> highlights so you won't miss it:
>>
>> From the opinion:
>>
>> "The Second Amendment protects *an individual right to
>> possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*,
>> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
>> such as self-defense within the home."
>
> Again, where does Scalia say the Second Amendment has
> nothing to do with the militia? What he does is split the
> amendment in two parts, the first part he says has no
> relationship to the second.
So you haven't read the opinion at all, eh Ratboy?
Next please.
The Lone Weasel
> Felix D. wrote:
>>> "The Second Amendment protects *an individual right to
>>> possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*,
>>> and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
>>> such as self-defense within the home."
>>
>> Again, where does Scalia say the Second Amendment has
>> nothing to do with the militia? What he does is split the
>> amendment in two parts, the first part he says has no
>> relationship to the second.
>
> Where does he say it? You just quoted it! "UNCONNECTED
> WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA". Here's the original sylabus
> published by the Supreme court itself:
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>
> The opinion states that the preamble gives a purpose; not a
> limitation. You can find all of this on page 1 of this 157
> page document. Look where it says "Held:".
Thank you, Nurse Schnerd.
>> In fact, the Second Amendment is one sentence which says,
>> Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the
>> security of a free state, the right of the people t keep
>> and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>
>> The word "individual" does not appear in the text of
>> this amendment.
>
> So what?
So every noun in the Second Amendment is a collective noun.
"Militia" is a collective noun, it's a body of citizen
soldiers.
"State" is a collective noun, it's the body politic as
organized for supreme civil rule and government.
"The people" is a collective noun, the whole body of
enfranchised or qualified citizens, considered as the source
of power; esp. in a democratic state.
"Arms" is a collective noun, meaning the weapons of war
altogether, which is why the militia is not irrelevant to the
Second Amendment.
There's no room for individuals in the Second Amendment
because it's about all of us together. Your individual right
to have weapons, if any, comes under the power of the internal
police reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
> It appears in the opinion, which is what now
> counts. The court spoke. Nobody else's opinion now
> matters, especially yours.
Augupia verforum sunt judice indigna. A twisting of language
is unworthy of a judge. Hob. 343.
PLMerite
>
> There's no room for individuals in the Second Amendment
> because it's about all of us together. Your individual right
> to have weapons, if any, comes under the power of the internal
> police reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
--
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary
citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
- Heinrich Himmler, a Nazi.
David Moffitt
On Jul 1, 10:40 am, Chris Morton <cmor...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >The National Guard is the well-regulated militia of Art I Sect 8 Cl 16
> >and the Second Amendment. See Maryland v. US (1965).
>
> Perpich v. DoD, retard.
What exactly about the case do you claim changes the state militia's
status as a state militia when it's not mustered into fderal service
you ridiculous drunkard?
%%%% How can the NG be the militia in the BOR when it didn't come into being
until 1902? My state militia is the militia and not the NG. The federal
government has no control of my state's militia like it does the NG. Only
the governor can call us out and we cannot be pressed into national service
like the NG lonely rodent.
Also, should there be any wiggle room at all when installing an 18.5"
Mossberg 500 cylinder bore bead sight barrel on a Maverick 88 that
came with a 28" barrel? Those barrels should be interchangeable
shouldn't they? Why would there be any wiggle room?
%%%% It's a legal barrel lonely rodent, I have double barrel shotguns with
18" barrels. What is this "wiggle room" you are talking about? OTOH how does
the crow pie taste?
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
---------- Jeff Snyder
David Moffitt
%%%% So the remainder of the BOR are collective rights and not individual
rights.
Only the collective has free speech and not the individual.
Only the collective has the right of not having soldiers quartered in their
homes and not the individual.
Only the collective has security of their persons, houses papers and effects
from search and seizure and not the individual.
Only the collective is protected from double jeoparty and not the
individual.
Only the collective has a right to a speedy trial and defense and not the
individual.
Only the collective has the right to a jury trial and not the individual.
Only the collective has a right against cruel and unusual punishment and not
the individual.
Only the collective has the right of the enumerations in the Constitution
and not the individual.
Only the collective has the power not delegated to the US by the
Constitution and reserved to the state and not the individual.
%%%% My, my how socialist of you.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist
n...@gntbcr.com
<lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Where does he say it? You just quoted it! "UNCONNECTED
>> WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA". Here's the original sylabus
>> published by the Supreme court itself:
>So every noun in the Second Amendment is a collective noun.
Here go loon. Let me rub your nose in it again.
1. Operative Clause.
a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of
the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”
The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights
use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the
First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in
the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The
Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights
that may be exercised only through participation in some
corporate body.5
Now go take your meds or quit drinking for awhile longer. You aren't
on the Supreme Court of the United States and your lies don't matter
anymore.
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
POINT PROVEN!
Gray Ghost
What part of NATIONAL Guard is unclear to you? It did not exist until 1902.
How could something not than in existence be the milita referred to in the
constitution?
> Also, the states like their National Guard (the well-regulated militia
> of the 2nd Amendment and Art I Sect 8 Cls 15-16) and they will fight
> this bad opinion and they'll win. Because by then Scalia will be
> shamed to retire or have a health issue or get a better job at
> Pepperdine as a full time rightwing propagandist.
>
I guess now you'll start arguing to reinstate slavery as a state's right.
Frank
David Moffitt
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACEC45804DFFWe...@216.196.97.142...
%%%% Lonely rodent is not thinking well these days. I suspect he has a toxic
blood level of crow from eating so much of it. ":o)
GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
The Lone Weasel
What part of Article I Section 8 Clause 16 have you still not
read thoroughly, Goosepatrol?
Congress has power to organize the militia; organization
entails naming the militia...
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
The Lone Weasel
>>> Where does he say it? You just quoted it! "UNCONNECTED
>>> WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA". Here's the original sylabus
>>> published by the Supreme court itself:
>
>>So every noun in the Second Amendment is a collective noun.
>
>
> Here go loon. Let me rub your nose in it again.
>
> 1. Operative Clause.
The entire Second Amendment is operative. Every word of the
Constitution is operative.
"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is
intended to be without effect..."
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Next please.
Buck Mulligan
>On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
><bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>
>No it doesn't.
Yeah, it does. It's been Decided. You lose.
Again.
Have a doughnut. It'll make you feel better, fat man.
Buck Mulligan
>On Jun 30, 7:21 pm, Sam Buckland <noth...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> > On Jun 27, 9:08 pm, Buck Mulligan
>> > <bkmulli...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
>> >> firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
>> >> traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
>>
>> > No it doesn't.
>>
>> Yes, son, it does! Read Heller.
>
>It's slopwork. Some truth-seeking historian will correct Scalia's
>numerous lies and inaccuracies which will lead to his professional
>embarrassment and his resignation or impeachment.
We'll all just hold our breath until that happens.
Sam Buckland
Hell, the dopey fuck can't even figure out that the
"National Guard" is NOT the "militia"... not that it
really MATTERS, as far as the 2nd is concerned.
Buck Mulligan
>On Jun 30, 9:04 pm, "David Moffitt" <dmoff...@stomping-leftist-
>twits.org> wrote:
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:08c16fa3-ec94-49ac-
>
>
>>> It's slopwork.
>>
>>It's the law.
>
>Just in DC.
So now you're claiming the Constitution only applies in D.C.?????
I KNEW this case would send you off the deep end! Laugh laugh laugh
laugh!
Sam Buckland
It's probably "Trans-fat poisoning"...
nHUS...@gntbcr.com
I guess I missed the part where the loon sneazel was the ultimate
authority of what is Constitutional.
Chop away fool.
Now let me rub your nose in it again.
POINT
PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Lone Weasel
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:39:52 -0500, The Lone Weasel
> <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Where does he say it? You just quoted it!
>>>>> "UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A MILITIA". Here's the
>>>>> original sylabus published by the Supreme court itself:
>>>
>>>>So every noun in the Second Amendment is a collective
>>>>noun.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here go loon. Let me rub your nose in it again.
>>>
>>> 1. Operative Clause.
>>
>>The entire Second Amendment is operative. Every word of
>>the Constitution is operative.
>>
>>"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution
>>is intended to be without effect..."
>>
>>MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
>>
>>Next please.
>
> I guess I missed the part where the loon sneazel was the
> ultimate authority of what is Constitutional.
Chief Justice John Marshall was the authority, fool.
Copulatio verborum indicat acceptionem in eodem sensu.
Coupling words together shows that they ought to be
understood in the same sense. Bacom's Max. in Reg. 3.
David Moffitt
"Sam Buckland" <not...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g4emq8$9hh$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
%%%% Nope, It's trans-crow poisoning. ":o)
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended
victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police,
and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he
must be taught to fear is his victim."
. . Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)
David Moffitt
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACED23631C...@216.196.97.131...
%%%% Superceded. How's the crow diet going lonely rodent?
"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended
victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police,
and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he
must be taught to fear is his victim."
. . Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)
|
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>> There's no room for individuals in the Second Amendment
>> because it's about all of us together. Your individual right
>> to have weapons, if any, comes under the power of the internal
>> police reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
>
> %%%% So the remainder of the BOR are collective rights and not individual
> rights.
You forget the fat fuck lives in an alternate universe where people actually
value what he thinks.
> Only the collective has free speech and not the individual.
> Only the collective has the right of not having soldiers quartered in their
> homes and not the individual.
> Only the collective has security of their persons, houses papers and effects
> from search and seizure and not the individual.
> Only the collective is protected from double jeoparty and not the
> individual.
> Only the collective has a right to a speedy trial and defense and not the
> individual.
> Only the collective has the right to a jury trial and not the individual.
> Only the collective has a right against cruel and unusual punishment and not
> the individual.
> Only the collective has the right of the enumerations in the Constitution
> and not the individual.
> Only the collective has the power not delegated to the US by the
> Constitution and reserved to the state and not the individual.
>
> %%%% My, my how socialist of you.
The Lune Wizard can rub his turd all day long but he will never put a shine on
it. It does affect the way he smells however.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
Gray Ghost
Constitution & Bill of Rights late 1780s
National Guard Early 1900s
Exactly how can the first reference the later? Time machine, extreme
foresight, ouija board, Nostradamus's prophecies?
Frank
Bama Brian
Your Straw Man; you feed it.
>
> Sounds like a notion you got from an NRA lawyer. Which one
> was it?
>
>> So says the SCOTUS; so say we all.
>
> What you say has always been a wide pile of horseshit, Mr.
> Playfool.
>
> This opinion will be overturned by Congress or by the Court
> itself when the fascists are kicked off.
And the Jabba-thing gurgles on with more inane, insane notions.
Congress cannot overturn the Supreme Court, Jabba old slime-spreader.
Nor can either the Supreme Court or Congress overturn the Constitution.
Do pay attention, Jabba. Life has been going on without you for many
decades now. You might want to go back and take that Civics class you
failed in the 4th grade. (ps: Civics isn't about Japanese cars.)
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
The Lone Weasel
Actually the name "National Guard" dates from about 1824 and
was adopted by a New York state militia unit in honor of
LaFayette.
And the US Constitution gives Congress power to organize the
militia which entails the power to call it whatever the fuck
Congress wants.
I know that drives you crazy, Gooseboy...
Bama Brian
Copulating verbally indicates acceptance in Eowyn's senusality.
And here we thought Aragorn was faithful to Arwen...
The Lone Weasel
Why do you think giving Chainy's political prisoners - many of
whom are surely innocent and unjustly incarcerated, but not
yet actually armed for battle - guns, would be a good idea?
They'd be non-US citizens, but you think they have a natural
right to have guns? Or not? Isn't the natural right to have
guns really horseshit that none of you really believe?
>> Sounds like a notion you got from an NRA lawyer. Which
>> one was it?
>>
>>> So says the SCOTUS; so say we all.
>>
>> What you say has always been a wide pile of horseshit, Mr.
>> Playfool.
>>
>> This opinion will be overturned by Congress or by the
>> Court itself when the fascists are kicked off.
>
> And the Jabba-thing gurgles on with more inane, insane
> notions. Congress cannot overturn the Supreme Court,
Statutes overturn US Supreme Court opinions all the time, far
more often than the Court overturns itself; although with
Scalia's Heller the Court, when Scalia's gone and sane
justices replace some of the fascists, might overturn that
embarrassing and stupid opinion.
That's a win for me, CrammaJammaDingDong.
> Jabba
> old slime-spreader. Nor can either the Supreme Court or
> Congress overturn the Constitution.
Scalia just gave it a shot to his lasting disgrace. He'll be
remembered as the most corrupt justice in history just like
Cheney/Bush is already the most corrupt fake administration in
history.
I guess you want a cite for a federal statute that overturned
a US Supreme Court opinion?
Then ask for it like a man.
Gray Ghost
The Dick Act of 1903 created the National Guard (the organized militia as
opposed to the unorganized militia which it still recognized) as a ready
reserve to the army.
What does this have to do with a document written 120 years earlier?
Frank
The Lone Weasel
It's the United States Constitution at Article I Section 8
Clause 16. That's what it has to do with you miserable
hoamskuled pissant.
Don't ever pretend the Constitution doesn't exist,
Goosefucker. That's what the NRA does and what Scalia did and
in a few years you won't want anybody to think you supported
either of those assholes.
Gray Ghost
The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903. How can any provision of
the Constitution apply to an entity which did not exist in the 1780s-1790s.
Frank
James Beck
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > Actually the name "National Guard" dates from about 1824 and
> > was adopted by a New York state militia unit in honor of
> > LaFayette.
> >
> > And the US Constitution gives Congress power to organize the
> > militia which entails the power to call it whatever the fuck
> > Congress wants.
> >
> > I know that drives you crazy, Gooseboy...
> >
> > Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
> >
> >
> >
>
> The Dick Act of 1903 created the National Guard (the organized militia as
> opposed to the unorganized militia which it still recognized) as a ready
> reserve to the army.
>
> What does this have to do with a document written 120 years earlier?
>
> Frank
>
>
You guys have just fell into his trap of lies so he has someone to
converse with. His dead desiccated mother sitting in the car in the
garage isn't amusing any more. He thought it was all over when the
supreme court ruled exactly the opposite of what he said they would,
then he thought, hell, all I gotta' do is lie and keep this all going.
Bye mom.........
Gray Ghost
news:MPG.22d5b606c...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
Oh I've been dealing with him for a while. Usually if you just keep asking the
same queston eventually he stops answering your posts withoust ever having
answered the question.
Makes him look pretty stupid and out of touch to the browsers. It ain't for
his benefit, it's for those who read but don't post.
Frank
David Moffitt
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACF84C677D...@216.196.97.131...
%%%% How's the crow pie tasting lonely rodent?
David Moffitt
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACF8156B19...@216.196.97.131...
| grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
The Lone Weasel
> The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903.
According to the National Guard the National Guard existed in
1644.
> How can
> any provision of the Constitution apply to an entity which
> did not exist in the 1780s-1790s.
You're more interested in names than function. I was just
reading a Massachusetts Militia Act from 1775 and I find no
mention of the Minutemen. The Minutemen were created in 1644
and were enrolled in the organized militia, usually between the
ages of 19 and 25, fought at Lexington, and now a year later I
find no metion of Minutemen in this Massachusetts statute.
There is mention of an Alarm List for each company, but the
Minutemen must have been disbanded.
And I guess they no longer had a militia, they had this
"Training Band" which was certainly no militia - different name.
That's what you say, eh Frank?
Next.
Sam Buckland
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) said:
>
>
>> The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903.
>
> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed in
> 1644.
>
>> How can
>> any provision of the Constitution apply to an entity which
>> did not exist in the 1780s-1790s.
>
> You're more interested in names than function.
So are YOU, loon, if you think the "National Guard" existed in 1644.
POINT PROVEN!
The Lone Weasel
I should have said 1636:
The National Guard is by far the oldest component of any of
the uniformed services. It traces its roots to the colonial
militia, and claims a "birthday" of 1636. By comparison, the
U.S. Army was founded in 1775 (its first units all came out
of the colonial militia) and the U.S. Air Force was created
in 1947. More importantly, the National Guard maintains a
unique "dual status" - both State and Federal - that no
other service or component has. This dual status is rooted
in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states
that "Congress shall have the power ... To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the
authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress."
http://www.ngb.army.mil/faq/index.asp
You are an ignoramus, Mr. Fuckhand.
Sam Buckland
> Sam Buckland <not...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903.
>>> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed
>>> in 1644.
>>>
>>>> How can
>>>> any provision of the Constitution apply to an entity
>>>> which did not exist in the 1780s-1790s.
>>> You're more interested in names than function.
>> So are YOU, loon, if you think the "National Guard" existed
>> in 1644.
>
> I should have said 1636:
>
Even worse, loon!
nHUS...@gntbcr.com
<lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903.
>
>According to the National Guard the National Guard existed in
>1644.
SO WHAT? Here, let me rub your nose in it again.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English
as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is
unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the
founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of
state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement
of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace
Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821(1998).
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause (“The separation of church and state
being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall
have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes
clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of
interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris,
A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed.
1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation
and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law
42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3
3 As Sutherland explains, the key 18th-century English case on the
effect of preambles, Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 24 Eng. Rep.
404 (1716), stated that “the preamble could not be used to restrict
the
effect of the words of the purview.” J. Sutherland, Statutes and
Statutory
Construction, 47.04 (N. Singer ed. 5th ed. 1992). This rule was
modified in England in an 1826 case to give more importance to the
preamble, but in America “the settled principle of law is that the
preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases
where
the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” Ibid.
Scout
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hcGdnZ468epW_fbV...@giganews.com...
> David Moffitt wrote:
>>> There's no room for individuals in the Second Amendment
>>> because it's about all of us together. Your individual right
>>> to have weapons, if any, comes under the power of the internal
>>> police reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
>>
>> %%%% So the remainder of the BOR are collective rights and not individual
>> rights.
>
>
> You forget the fat fuck lives in an alternate universe where people
> actually value what he thinks.
Really?
He thinks?
Since when?
Scout
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACF8156B19...@216.196.97.131...
So if they call it "The Militia of the United States".... then that's ok
too?
Scout
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACF9F46FF3...@216.196.97.131...
Except the National Guard isn't the militia of Article 1.
"Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia"
means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that
petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia." [ie.
National Guard]
"Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally
organized militia may consist of a subset of them."
Thus the National Guard is a SUBSET of the Militia, as set forth by SCOTUS
in the following quote "In United States v.Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179
(1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
SCOTUS disagrees with your assertion that the National Guard is the full
extent of the militia.
So does federal law.
Seems like you are alone on this one Lee.
Scout
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACFB2D4512...@216.196.97.131...
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) said:
>
>
>> The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903.
>
> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed in
> 1644.
Yep, but it wasn't organized as the National Guard until 1903, until then it
would be what you call "the unorganized militia"....
Scout
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9ACFB76AA77...@216.196.97.131...
> Sam Buckland <not...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The modern National Guard did not exist until 1903.
>>>
>>> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed
>>> in 1644.
>>>
>>>> How can
>>>> any provision of the Constitution apply to an entity
>>>> which did not exist in the 1780s-1790s.
>>>
>>> You're more interested in names than function.
>>
>> So are YOU, loon, if you think the "National Guard" existed
>> in 1644.
>
> I should have said 1636:
>
> The National Guard is by far the oldest component of any of
> the uniformed services. It traces its roots to the colonial
> militia,
traces it's roots TO THE COLONIAL MILITIA..........
The Colonial militia wasn't the National Guard, nor is the National Guard
the colonial militia. All you've shown is that the militia pre existed the
Constitution, and damn SCOTUS agrees with you. However, they disagree with
the assertion that the organized federal militia is the extent of the
Constitutional militia.
The Lone Weasel
>> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed
>> in 1644.
>
> Yep
Thank you, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser.
Next please.
Sam Buckland
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
>
>
>>> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed
>>> in 1644.
>> Yep
>
> Thank you, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser.
>
> Next please.
>
>
LAUGH, LAUGH, LAUGH, LAUGH, LAUGH!!!
Scout
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
>
>
>>> According to the National Guard the National Guard existed
>>> in 1644.
>>
>> Yep
>
> Thank you, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser.
Poor Weasel. Quoting our of context in order to attempt to show support when
there isn't, ignoring the point made, and still being unable to know who
he's talking to. Oh, well, you've had your 30 minutes of freedom from the
twit filter, time to just put you back in.
Have to say, it's pleasant that you so quickly give me reason to continue to
ignore you.
<plonk>
The Lone Weasel
>> It's the United States Constitution at Article I Section 8
>> Clause 16. That's what it has to do with you miserable
>> hoamskuled pissant.
>
> Except the National Guard isn't the militia of Article 1.
[begin excerpt]
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the
States by Art. I, section 8, cl. 15, 16, of the
Constitution. [footnote 8] It has only been in recent years
that the National Guard has been an organized force, capable
of being assimilated with ease into the regular military
establishment of the United States. From the days of the
Minutemen of Lexington and Concord until just before World
War I, the various militias embodied the concept-of a
citizen army, but lacked the equipment and training
necessary for their use as an integral part of the reserve
force of the United States Armed Forces. [footnote 9]
_____
8. "The Congress shall have Power ...
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions: "To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
reserving to the States respectively the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
9. See generally, Wiener, The Militia Clause of the
Constitution, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 181 (1940).
Maryland v United States (1965)
[end excerpt]
Did Scabia even mention this case? Know why not? It's a
state case you fucking nitwit. Heller is a federal district
case.
Maryland v. US is still the law.
> Seems like you are alone on this one Lee.
Not really, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser - Scalia's alone with his
neocon aka fascist supporters and the law and history are
against him.
All the true facts are on my side.
Dismissed, Snout.
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
>>
>>
>>>> According to the National Guard the National Guard
existed
>>>> in 1644.
>>> Yep
>>
>> Thank you, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser.
>>
>> Next please.
>
> No need for "next".
You're also dismissed, Mr. Fuckhand.
Next.
Sam Buckland
POINT PROVEN!!