Well I guess it is good you won one time in your life.
I win every time you post.
I get it. I do. It's the Internet. There is no reverse gear and there's no real consequence to getting beaten like a baby seal. It's all virtual and that's fine.
Two things though.
One, you can't and/or won't articulate why the verbiage about militias falls in the Bill of Rights - a list of specifically enumerated personal liberties. Awfully problematic for you.
Two, you basically admitted a few years back that you are a statist and believe in big government. Arguing Constiutional intent with you is a dead end because you don't value it. Therefore, "shall not be infringed" also has no value to you.
I'm a big fan of that antiquated document and genuineky feel it's the only thing that stands between us and tyranny - and I don't limit that to party loyalty. Of that, I happily have none.
As regards the leotards, I know that's in good fun, but I can tell you exactly what it's like to have hot naked women climbing my leg while I play a guitar and sing lead vocals in a rock concert through a 50,000 watt sound system for thousands of people while dodging flying panties, spitting blood and breathing fire. Its silly and you can't take yourself too seriously (I don't) but dude, it is exactly as much fun as you would hope it might be.
It's my "casual Friday" golf attire, for lack of a better analogy. By the way, the spandex is easy. It's the boots that suck.
Mega, make no mistake -- deep down, I admire the verve and panache of anyone that can take a stage and pull that off. Diamond Dave wore tights in the day, and that ends the conversation. I also wish I didn't have 10 thumbs and could play a guitar better. I have a few and I totally suck. I love playing, but I'm awful. You're still in Oklahoma though, so wearing tights is fair game.
I don't care what the founding fathers intended. It was 240ish years ago, the world is very different, values are different, threats are different, rights are different, our government is different, expectations are different, concepts of fairness and liberty are different.... everything has changed. BUT -- to the extent the second amendment guarantees an individual liberty, it does so for one explicitly stated reason: the security of the state. To quote armysoldah, written words are not an illusion. This argument that all bill of rights must protect individual liberties is contradicted by the first phrase of that provision.
Also, it relates to a militia, which was an organized, volunteer military force. We don't have that now. We don't have flintlocks now. The security of the state is no longer secured by people having muskets in their closets. Militia members don't grab a gun and shoot an invader. We now have a standing army that does that. This is why I don't care about the original intent -- their intentions apply to a different world. If the Thors of the world are right, then losers aren't just using guns -- they can have ricin and claymores to "protect" themselves under the second amendment, as well. Extending your thinking to a logical conclusion allows just that.
I'm as big a fan of that document as you are, it still requires protection. But it's not unpatriotic to acknowledge facts and anachronisms and change with the times. C
essante ratione legis, cessat ipse lex. Quoting esoteric latin legalese on a chat board is the nerd lawyer equivalent of wearing tights and puking fire with panties around your neck.
