What the Right Wing Media Won't Tell You About Assault Weapons

[haymarket]

I understand that is what you believe.





One can only assume that you WANT the federal government to undermine and encroach upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You believe what you want to believe because you believe it. :roll:

I guess in your mind everybody else does the same. :doh

 

[Federalist]

You believe what you want to believe because you believe it. :roll:

I guess in your mind everybody else does the same. :doh

Thank you for sharing your beliefs regarding what I believe.

But my earlier point, which you seem determined to avoid, is this: You claim that you support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet you spend inordinate amounts of time here on this board making the argument that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation that denies the people of the states the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

How are those who read your posts to square these two contradictory positions? Do you think it is unreasonable for people to conclude that you don't really support the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[haymarket]

Thank you for sharing your beliefs regarding what I believe.

But my earlier point, which you seem determined to avoid, is this: You claim that you support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet you spend inordinate amounts of time here on this board making the argument that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation that denies the people of the states the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

How are those who read your posts to square these two contradictory positions? Do you think it is unreasonable for people to conclude that you don't really support the right to keep and bear arms?

Again, you keep doing the same dishonest thing: introducing the qualifier FREELY into the discussion of Constitutional rights.

 

[Federalist]

Again, you keep doing the same dishonest thing: introducing the qualifier FREELY into the discussion of Constitutional rights.

Is it dishonest for me to claim that you spend inordinate amounts of time here on this board making the argument that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation that denies the people of the states the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms? You'll have to be a little more specific about what you consider to be untrue about my statement.

You claim to be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, yet you continually argue in favor of federal power to enact impediments and restrictions on this right. Someone here is being dishonest, but it certainly is not me.

 

[haymarket]

Is it dishonest for me to claim that you spend inordinate amounts of time here on this board making the argument that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation that denies the people of the states the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms? You'll have to be a little more specific about what you consider to be untrue about my statement.

You claim to be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, yet you continually argue in favor of federal power to enact impediments and restrictions on this right. Someone here is being dishonest, but it certainly is not me.

When you inject the qualfier of FREELY into it and tell me you are not talking about Constitutional rights - yes , that is dishonest.

 

[Jerry]

The real fraud or lie being perpetrated here is that every time this subject has come up for months and months you and others have sold us on a certain product - namely that there is a law telling us that all able bodied men between a certain age are in the militia and you then quote that law for us. And then we are told that these same men need to have military weaponry as civilians just in case they are called up and that militia is activated.

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's correct.

And I have told you that militia exists only on paper and is a fiction otherwise created by a legal piece of paper. The events of the past century have rendered it so and the National Guard and other professional units have replaced the concept.

There's that lie again.

That is truth and that is fact.

So, after months and months and months of you peddling your argument like a door to door brush salesman and getting that same door slammed in your face, you now attempt to change your product but still call it a brush. Now you find these self defense units which exist in a small number of states and are attempting to play three card montie with us by switching what constitutes the militia that you cited in this law you have been touting for months.

Sorry but they are not the same militia that I was correct about existing only on paper.

The real fraud being attempted here.... the real lie here ... is you attempting something so dishonest in the first place.

That's what their called today. I didn't change the name, I just know what I'm talking about. The reason for the name change is that the Guard can be called to Federal Service. Before the Guard could be called to Federal service, they were just "militia". If you don't like it hen you can go take it up with hose respective states.

Either way you shouldn't lie anymore.

 

[haymarket]

That's correct.


There's that lie again.


That's what their called today. I didn't change the name, I just know what I'm talking about. The reason for the name change is that the Guard can be called to Federal Service. Before the Guard could be called to Federal service, they were just "militia". If you don't like it hen you can go take it up with hose respective states.

Either way you shouldn't lie anymore.

And its clearly NOT the same product you have been selling for months here. I really don't give a care about what name somebody adopts. A Boston Cream Pie is still a cake no matter how you cut it. And what you or some state is calling these units are clearly NOT the militia that the law refers to or what you have been pushing.

And now its you who are lying about me.

 

[Jerry]

And its clearly NOT the same product you have been selling for months here.

Yes they are.

And now its you who are lying about me.

You keep saying these units only exist on paper. I demonstrated that to be false. I linked to the evidence. I even filled out your little form proving it. You lie.

 

[haymarket]

Yes they are.

The product you were selling about men being in the militia as the law described it.

You do know what a comparison is... right? Calling something a militia does not make it any more of a militia that matches the law you kept citing any more than the name Boston Cream Pie changes it into anything but a cake does.

 

[Jerry]

The product you were selling about men being in the militia as the law described it.

You do know what a comparison is... right?

You're response doesn't mach what you quoted. Wana try again?

 

[haymarket]

Yes they are.


You keep saying these units only exist on paper. I demonstrated that to be false. I linked to the evidence. I even filled out your little form proving it. You lie.

Your analysis is less than impressive. It changes nothing that you are trying to do in shifting the true meaning of what you have pushed here for months and playing a fraudulent game of three card montie with reality.

What you dug up as the modern militia is NOT the same militia that you claimed we all belonged to months ago. Its two very very different things. And a name does not change that.

 

[Jerry]

Your analysis is less than impressive. It changes nothing that you are trying to do in shifting the true meaning of what you have pushed here for months and playing a fraudulent game of three card montie with reality.

Nothing has shifted except your knowledge of the truth. What I've said before is still true today, and in case a casual reader isn't aware of what "product" on mine you're talking about....

USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

We're already part of the unorganized militia. This is how we can be drafted, because we're already affiliated with the military by default...the state can just 'call us up'. They're not enslaving a free man, they're activating a militiaman. The very purpose of the Selective Service is to record exactly who is in the unorganized militia should they need to be activated.

I've long been of the opinion that a 2-year term or service should be mandatory for everyone upon turning 18, because when you turn 18 you become part of the militia whether you like it or not. This is forced on you like taxes, so IMO just roll with it, use it to your advantage. Even if you choose not to continue to serve in the military, you are still in the militia and so you should have some base-level training to accompany it. You could be summarily deputized during a natural disaster before relief comes. You could be part of a neighborhood watch, etc. These civil duties would be greatly served by basic military training.

 

[haymarket]

We're already part of the unorganized militia.

Only on paper. it has not been that way in real life for a very long time now. And Selective Service is not the issue here. Again, there you persist with the intellectually dishonest three card montie.

 

[Jerry]

Only on paper.

There's that lie again.

 

[haymarket]

There's that lie again.

Perhaps a visit to the second grade and ask the teacher to explain to you the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion.

 

[Jerry]

Perhaps a visit to the second grade and ask the teacher to explain to you the difference between a lie and a difference of opinion.

You don't simply disagree, you knowingly lie, over and over again. You are one of the most purposefully dishonest people I've ever met. Even when confronted with the well-sourced, linked proof, even when your own silly little form is filled out showing you exactly how you're wrong, which you haven't contested, you keep lying.

Militia units exist, as sourced. Militia units are active today, filling a variety of rolls, as sourced. That we haven't needed to call the population en-mass to repel an invasion is a very good thing. That's the whole point of having an armed population, so that we never have to use our arms; so that the credible threat of force keeps our enemies away and we can enjoy the lugury of arguing about irrelevant bull**** like same-sex marriage instead of living in constant war.

The whole point of having a gun in your home or on your person is to keep violence away from you, since criminals typically **** their pants and run, not stand and fight, when the victim produces a firearm.

 

[blaxshep]

You don't simply disagree, you knowingly lie, over and over again. You are one of the most purposefully dishonest people I've ever met.

Yep. It goes along with liberalism.

 

[Federalist]

When you inject the qualfier of FREELY into it and tell me you are not talking about Constitutional rights - yes , that is dishonest.

I'm not talking about constitutional rights, actually. Please read more carefully.

I AM stating that you spend inordinate amounts of time here on this board making the argument that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation that denies the people of the states the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

Do you understand the difference between the words "ability" and "right"?

So now, please tell me what is dishonest about my observation that your seem to make a DebatePolitics career out of arguing that the federal government is legally authorized to deny the people of the states the ABILITY to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

 

[haymarket]

You don't simply disagree, you knowingly lie, over and over again. You are one of the most purposefully dishonest people I've ever met. Even when confronted with the well-sourced, linked proof, even when your own silly little form is filled out showing you exactly how you're wrong, which you haven't contested, you keep lying.

You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you do not know the difference between an outright lie and a difference of opinion about what constitutes a militia.

As to being well sourced - YOU are the guy who keeps saying you will hold back your sources until I apologize for the equalivelant of ruffling your dress.

 

[haymarket]

I'm not talking about constitutional rights, actually. Please read more carefully.

I AM stating that you spend inordinate amounts of time here on this board making the argument that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to enact legislation that denies the people of the states the ability to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

Do you understand the difference between the words "ability" and "right"?

So now, please tell me what is dishonest about my observation that your seem to make a DebatePolitics career out of arguing that the federal government is legally authorized to deny the people of the states the ABILITY to freely acquire, keep, and bear arms.

And why am I suppose to care about what you think your 'ABILITY' is to do anything as opposed to me as an American defending your rights?

 

[Federalist]

And why am I suppose to care about what you think your 'ABILITY' is to do anything as opposed to me as an American defending your rights?

I don't expect you to care, really. You have the lust to dominate others, so I know that the liberty of your fellow man is meaningless to you.

However, since there are more posters than the two of us in this forum, it is worth pointing out that, while you say you support the rights of others, you, in fact, support federal legislation that limits the freedom of the people of the several states.

 

[haymarket]

I don't expect you to care, really. You have the lust to dominate others, so I know that the liberty of your fellow man is meaningless to you.

However, since there are more posters than the two of us in this forum, it is worth pointing out that, while you say you support the rights of others, you, in fact, support federal legislation that limits the freedom of the people of the several states.

If you try harder you could work in some other meaningless chiches along with your personal attacks on me. :roll:

 

[blaxshep]

If you try harder you could work in some other meaningless chiches along with your personal attacks on me. :roll:

Looks to me like yet another poster has seen right through your obvious BS.

BTW - What's with the "personal attacks on me" crocodile tears. Does that ever really work?

 

[Catawba]

Correlation does not indicate causation, so lets take a look at the numbers...
Australian Institute of Criminology - Trends in violent crime
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics
Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law

Homicide in general has been decreasing at a fairly steady rate since at least 89.
Homicide involving firearms were already dropping well before the 1996 gun laws.
Suicide by firearm was already decreasing.

What do you think this shows, exactly? It appears to me that the gun laws were rather ineffectual, and I see no reason to implement something that infringes on our rights and doesn't have a noticeable effect on anything.

All the reputable studies consistently show that homicides and suicides were reduced dramatically.

Here is Australia's former Prime Minister, Conservative John Howard on their efforts:

 

[blaxshep]

All the reputable studies consistently show that homicides and suicides were reduced dramatically.

Funny if you click on the poll your link shows "Should the GOP fight gun control"; the results are 90% Yes :lamo

I'm just glad that prick is in Australlia. Public safety issue my ass.