"...we're all supposed to have M-16s." --publiusF27
Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
Just like I've always said. The idea that Crips are militia is balderdash.
Considering you were the one trying to tie said Militia clause to the Crips in the first place, feel vindicated that your strawman has fallen...
Backwards.
Typical Rosco.
My position has always been the following:
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. - L. Neil Smith. The Atlanta Declaration
You were trying to obfuscate things by bringing in active duty militia regulation under Art 1 Para 8 Militia "regulation" and trying to tie it to criminal gang activity.
Poor you... Still stupid after all of these years.
"...we're all supposed to have M-16s." --publiusF27
Silly stupid Roscoe. Too afraid of the gang bangers to bother with his own personal security.
You asked three people two dozen times whether Crips and Bloods are in the unorganized militia, and now your favorite question is completely irrelevant. Does your widdle fanny hurt? ;-)
My only comment to this is if ANYONE ATTEMPTS to take my guns... There will be blood.
They’re your heros, not mine.
Pathetic.
Scalia demolished your absurd answer. And you called me to the thread to spank you for it. I obliged.
Try to focus.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you changed your tune. It just seems that you are chasing your own tail here...
Does "all" mean "all"?
What next Mr. Clinton, arguing "is" again?
“...we’re all supposed to have M-16s.” —publiusF27
Backwards again. You’re the one squirming that “all” doesn’t mean all.
Didn't work for you before, isn't going to work for you now.
Or are you trying to say that every law abiding gun owner is a "criminal" and should not have access to the full expression of his individual Rights? That'd be just like you.
Crips aren't militia.
Scalia said nothing about § 311 or the composition of the militia, and you haven’t explained why Crips and Bloods are exempt from that law. I called you here to gloat because Scalia used the same reasoning I did w/respect to Miller when I sarcastically asked whether Miller was in a militia.
I thought gloating would be fun, because I figured you would know that your side lost in the Heller case. What I have found is much more interesting and amusing - you have adopted the individual rights position as if you held it all along. It’s kind of like you have some Orwellian internal mandate that whatever the current position of the government is, it must be right, and it must always have been right, and it must always have been your position. Doublethink in action. Just fascinating stuff. Keep it up!
Does the 2nd amendment apply to Crips in Chicago?
(That may become my new favorite question, which I’ll ask a couple of dozen times at least, and it’ll be relevant each time. ;))
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.