Aestu wrote:
That isn't what you said.
Jubbergun wrote:
My "rhetoric" is the least of the things that will cease to be of any use to you if you're dead.
For a guy that "reads and then thinks," you certainly miss a lot.
Aestu wrote:
There is no lawful reason to have a .50 under your bed. If you want to defend your country, do what they do in Switzerland which is run to the local armory in the event of an attack.
I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the quoted text that it follows, but I think I explained the principles involved well enough for all the "uneducated" people to understand. I'm obviously going to have to find a way to dumb it down so the "educated" people can follow along, too.
Oh, and
the personal weapons of the Swiss militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world. They don't "run to the local armory." Not that we should let facts get in the way of what you allegedly read in a book somewhere, that would be "uneducated" of us.
Nice Google--not that it matters since only your Nice Googles represent a detriment wrote:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
All of which is completely irrelevant since the right to bear arms has now been recognized as an individual right in the
Heller decision. The only way the militia portion of the 2nd amendment is now applicable is that the
Miller decision allows the government to limit which arms should be considered to be available to a militia. While you're not going to find saw-off shotguns like the one the
Miller decision relates to in regular military use, you can't say the same about a .50 cal rifle, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a military weapon in regular use by our armed forces is somehow not a proper militia weapon.
Aestu wrote:
Your ignorance of European history is so total that you have absolutely no idea what I was talking about, so you say "chambermaids" because the limit of your knowledge of the history of servitude in the Old World is limited to some photocopied paintings you saw at the mall.
Actually, I said "chambermaids" because slaves were predominantly used for domestic duties in wealthy households in Europe prior to the bulk of Europe deciding to do away with the practice. If Europe had been as reliant upon slavery for industry/agriculture as the American South, the practice would not have disappeared until much later.
Aestu wrote:
The "unchecked power" you keep referring to wasn't an issue, because the very state(s) that were exercising the "democratic mandate" you refer to were allowing slavery. It wasn't until an issue of race--regarding slaves as people instead of a lesser species--surfaced that there was any concern over the practice.
You were definitely talking about the American Civil War.
No, I was talking about the United States and acknowledging other countries (
State: 5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign), exactly as I said. It's not my fault your vocabulary is limited and your reading comprehension is laughable, and I'm not going to accept any blame for shortcomings you continue to fail to acknowledge.
Aestu wrote:
You keep conflating "education" with my having a BA (sits in a folio, has creases and spaghetti stains from serial mishandling) which betrays your massive inferiority complex. My sitting in a classroom way too long has nothing to do with my being "educated".
I'm educated and you are not because I read books and think about them, and you Google to corroborate what you read on right-wing blogs and radio. I inquire, and you prefer to have an attitude rather than correct your ignorance.
Actually, I'm flatly stating that you're a daft git and that any evidence of your superior cognitive abilities are wholly imagined delusions born of your narcissism. Furthermore, it would be hard to maintain an "inferiority complex" about such trivialities as a piece of sheepskin when individuals like yourself demonstrate how little value such an item conveys upon its recipients. I cannot fathom how 'reading' does you any good when you routinely demonstrate that you misunderstand so much of what you read, neither can I account for what benefit you derive from "thinking" about what you've misunderstood, especially when the lines of reasoning you employ are faulty.
TL;DR--You're one of the dumbest "smart" people I know. You're not just wrong about this subject, you're demonstrably wrong about it, which is why you had to stoop so low as to pull the race card and start this argument in the first place. If you weren't my pal, I wouldn't even bother reading the silliness you post, much less respond to it.
Your Pal,
Jubber
EDIT: Needed to clear up a few formatting errors.