Is the 2nd Amendment just for muskets?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
In sys's defense, there are plenty of dumb, irrational, incoherent lawyers/attorneys out there.
Sys will explain this one to you. Well, actually he will post lots of BS that doesn't apply and then call you a name. But, you know, it all of it will mean that the 2A doesn't apply to today's weapons.
Go buy a musket you crazy 2Aer!
In sys's defense, there are plenty of dumb, irrational, incoherent lawyers/attorneys out there.
Amen. Most of them can't make it in the private sector so they find a government tit.
Amen. Most of them can't make it in the private sector so they find a government tit.
Some of them took a pay cut from a private criminal defense/plaintiffs' civil rights practice because they married a cop, too.
My wife may have my balls in her dresser drawer, but I have no doubts about my ability to make it in the private sector, thanks. I school those private sector whiz kids in the court room and train them up in the classroom on the regular too....just like I'm doing with you.
Hey....this insulting instead of discussing is kind of fun!
Last edited:
Amen. Most of them can't make it in the private sector so they find a government tit.
Because I know JD is a good sport.
Because I know JD is a good sport.
It was. I even liked sys's post.
Actually, in the private sector your employer wouldn't let you sit on your ass and post on message boards all day. That sweet titty lets you sit back and waste time though, doesn't it, counselor? Taxpayers are certainly getting their dollar's worth out of you. What agency do you shirk for?
Hell the more I think about it, you and medic are turning me republican. You two validate all the stereotypes of government employees. Your government employee/law enforcement entitlement makes me wonder why I would trust state gubmint to get anything right. PASS THE AMMUNITION!! THE SECOND AMENDMENT LIVES!
Yet here you are, an attorney working in the private sector.
For the third time...
Are there people who can't legally own or possess firearms?
PS, I don't work for the government. You're wrong as usual.
He isn't even good at that. This entire thread is filled with his failed bullshit.This is for sys...
Actually, I'm at Mercy hospital waiting to get an MRI of my leg....thanks.
If I was getting taken to the woodshed like you are, I'd say anything I could think of to make it stop too.
You fail again.
....or ankle.
Let's just say I'm learning I'm too old and uncoordinated for rec league soccer...gonna stick to mma from now on. It's safer.
Well despite you gratuitously picking a fight, I hope your ankle's ok. I also appreciate you tryign to stick up for medic last night -- I also try to help the vulnerable and it doesn't always go well for me, either. Having someone actually hit back can be scary.
Which agency do you work for?
Sorry podnah you've forfeited the privilege of engaging me when you wrote, "If I'm not legally allowed to own one, I can't buy one legally. Again, not infringement."
Re-think your position and reasons for it and when you're ready, we'll talk.
Uh, yeah. You have nothing. Even your attempt at distraction took a dump on your face. So far in this thread, you've managed not one fact to support any of your drivel. Brilliant work for an "attorney."
Just as has happened in all of the other 2nd Amendment ass kickings you've received on this board, you're obviously ready to tap out. Take some time off and educate yourself about history so you have something other than wetting the bed the next time you want to discuss the 2nd.
In sys's defense, there are plenty of dumb, irrational, incoherent lawyers/attorneys out there.
I think about 80% of them work in the divorce industry.
He already told me. It's a good argument, but wrong. Or something like that. Anyway, the point is they are different. Very different. Somehow.
Are you seriously changing the subject to the inefficiency and laziness of government employees? That undermines your points even more than anything else you've said ITT.
1. I didn't gratuitously pick a fight. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in thinking you might actually be interested in rational discussion and exploration of issues without picking a fight. Mea culpa. I've learned my lesson. It won't happen again.
2. You think you were "hitting back"? Is that what you call those pillow blows of yours?
3. After your little rant, you expect me to actually disclose which agency I work for? I'll pass. You strike me as the type of guy that would call up someone's boss in retaliation for being made to look foolish on the Internet.
Riiiight.
You literally are afraid of getting turned in for wasting time! BWAAAAHAHAHAHA what a lazy chickenshit! WTF, are you 12 and working at a snow cone stand? Life on the tit!! Yes, please share some more of your professional judgment with us when you're not trying to keep your boss from finding out you f&@% off on taxpayer time.
Riiiight.
You literally are afraid of getting turned in for wasting time! BWAAAAHAHAHAHA what a lazy chickenshit! WTF, are you 12 and working at a snow cone stand? Life on the tit!! Yes, please share some more of your professional judgment with us when you're not trying to keep your boss from finding out you f&@% off on taxpayer time.
Its says more about you than it does about me....we all know that. I'm not afraid. It's just clear you're a low character kinda guy. If you really cared that much, it would be easy for you to find out. There are plenty people that know. I'm not gonna volunteer it.
Btw, it's impossible to truly insult someone who doesn't give a single shit what you think about them. Keep trying though. It's amusing.
Last edited:
Hilarious little tantrum syssy! That straight up chick bitchiness must be from your PMS bloating making you feel too fat for your panties. Take some Midol or something.
Sir, I congratulate you for finally wading into the Wheaties pisser! Let the record show that what you/others are doing to my ignore list far exceed the equivalent of gutting a "mullet" fish:
Last edited:
@syskatine didnt you say after sandy hook that you owned 30 guns, including an AK?
I'm thinking about getting one. Can I get your opinion on banana clips?
I'm thinking about getting one. Can I get your opinion on banana clips?
As mad as he is about assault rifles, there's no way he owns an AK. He probably has the world's largest collection of single shot firearms in the country.
Either he or CUP claimed ownership of an AK. I forget which.
I think he needs to address his gun ownership.
It may have been syskatine. That was pure speculation on my part because of his insatiable anger toward assault rifles. I would figure his hatred would preclude ownership of one, but he is one strange large gun collection having anti gun person.
And he won't address his gun ownership. He knows that he has only two choices in answering the question at this point, and both are losers for him.
Another SCOTUS decision, US v Miller, 1939, further defines Militia. In his opinion, Justice McReynolds described the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, referring to the Militia, as "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces." In referring to the Constitution as originally adopted in differentiating between the Militia and troops, he continued, "The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was adequate defense of the country and laws could be secured by the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
McReynolds also cited Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, "In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of a soldier; in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two species of military force."
It is quite clear from this Supreme Court decision that the Militia was intended to be comprised of ordinary people and not military personnel.
To further define the Militia as the whole body of ordinary citizenry, Judge Thomas Cooley, a highly regarded 19th century constitutional scholar, realized that the state might call into its militia only "a small number" of the eligible citizenry. He wrote that "if the right [to keep and bear arms] were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check."
Similar threads
