Posted on 10/27/2011 6:58:16 AM PDT by marktwain
Thanks....I had to LOL at your post above, heck of a description!
I’ll take your advice!
I’ll give him that. Honed my views.
...but a sharpening stone should be used with care, and put away when done lest the blade be ground down to nothing or others be unduly damaged. And when the stone becomes warped from overuse, it should be discarded - as should rp redux.
Also from the Post 38 you cite:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?”
Just making sure I didn’t miss something.
You’re a smart fellow; you’ll figure it out.
Yes, Mr. White, it is more effective ... unless the opponent refuses to admit being wrong, instead forever leaping off to some other imagined flaw and flailing thereon. We’ve been thru this many times together, and many a FReeper and moderator has agreed you’ve gotta go.
Thanks, mods!
FWIW...
“Robert Paulsen” was the antihero protagonist of _Fight_Club_, who operated an anarchistic organization.
“Mr. White” was an antihero protagonist of _Reservoir_Dogs_, who operated a criminal organization.
Other pseudonymns used by this character followed the same pattern.
Ooops!
He had one other ID from _Fight_Club_, (shortly after his banning as robertpaulsen) but I don’t recall what it was.
Just an observation...
Sorry about that dark wing, meant the ping for the other darkwing104
The Founders were very careful about their phrasing, so going to a linguistics expert to parse out the meaning of the amendment is certainly a useful exercise - especially for those who keep tossing that militia word at us.
Funny, any time you lose an argument you take on a self-righteous “I’m smarter than you, I’m tired of you, I’m not wasting any more time on you” when it’s you that hasn’t justified squat.And yes, not long after that handle was banned, he popped up with another name reflecting another notable movie anarchist's flunky.I suppose it fits someone whose chosen handle, backed up by links on his profile page, is a fictional character whose primary claims to fame is having (A) been emasculated, and (B) died doing something stupid. (Yes, folks, the name “Robert Paulsen”, reinforced by the audio link on his profile page, refer to a not particularly respectable character in the movie “Fight Club” - fitting for someone whose MO on FR is to pick all the fights he can.)
>Does this mean we can own tanks and aircraft, maybe have our own armies and navies?
Yes.
You should also look up the phrases “letters of mark” and “letters of reprisal.”
>>”How did ya like that Kelo decision?”
>
>How do I “like” it? I don’t understand.
>
>Oh, wait a minute. I get it. You think unpopular Supreme Court decisions are wrong and the decisions you agree with are correct.
>
>Well. That’s certainly an interesting interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Juvenile, but interesting.
No, Kelo is a patently obvious BAD decision; in it the court allowed as “for the public use” requirement of the 5th amendment to be filled by a PROJECTION of increased tax revenues.
This means that all the government has to do to justify taking someone’s property is to project that it will have some positive impact on revenue via taxation... as a not-so-stretched example, a government agent could take a little old lady’s classic Cadillac that she only uses on Sundays because they project that the public will benefit via the increase taxes of the vehicle being used more often than once a week and they could do it based just on the fuel-tax.
Outstanding. 10th Amendment FTW!
Why only basic armament?
I want an M4A1 with ACOG and M203 launcher.
And I want to carry it on the NYC subway.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [parade permit laws] under consideration do not have this effect.Presser v . Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Sweet
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.