Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
GEErnst, the easiest way to remove the problem of people calling you thinking you are someone else is to rename again. I suggest "Liberty Theft, Inc."
I obviously struck a nerve, I'm loving it.
__________________
Marshall
I would not expect the small, weak minds who show up at a place like this to have original thoughts.
Welcome to The High Road, GEErnst. Unfortunately we don’t get many antis in these parts. Your participation should liven things up a bit
These days progun means there is civil right secured by government to commit treason against the same government
This fallacy is known as "strawman." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
For example, I adhere to an individual rights perspective on the 2nd Amendment, so presumably I am “pro-gun,” but I do not advocate violence against the republic or its officers.
>Antigun means we resurrect the original militia concept as manifest in the Militia Act of 1792.
“Antigun” can mean many things. Some “antigun” people believe that it should be unlawful to own a semiautomatic rifle that has both a pistol grip. Others insist that no one besides government employees (police, military, intelligence agencies) should be allowed to possess firearms.
Where do you stand on such weighty matters?
>It may be heavy going for weak minds but see Jeffry Rogers Hummel, “The American Militia and the Origins of Conscription: A Reassessment,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2001, published ironically by the very libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute. In a work richly referenced and unusual for honesty in the present environment, Hummel went searching for an individual right and was very disappointed to discover conscription.
Wrong. I have read that article. It is incorrect to assert that Hummel “went looking for an individual right.” Hummel presented his article as a mild corrective to Michael A. Bellesiles’s dishonest book, _Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture_. “Bellesiles’s most arresting claim, and the one for which he has drawn the most criticism, is that very few Americans owned firearms prior to the Civil War. In reaching this conclusion, Bellesiles makes some equally dubious assertions about the insignificance and incompetence of the American militia of the era. His denigration flies in the face of what military historians, whatever their ideological inclinations, have long known about the pervasive historical role and operations of the militia.”
Hummel’s article does wade into the debate over conflicting interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Speaking of that fraud Bellesiles, I see that your institute still publish his works? http://www.potowmack.org/mbelles.html
Why?
>J. Norman Heath also went searching for a individual right and found very confused jurisprudence: “Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation.”
Here’s what Heath wrote:
“If the lower federal court Second Amendment decisions are founded in Supreme Court militia jurisprudence, then we can reasonably dismiss the ‘individual right’ interpretation of the amendment. Conversely, if the Constitution as expounded by the high court leaves Congress with the power to preempt the states' ability to maintain well-regulated militia, then it would follow that the Second Amendment, (p.42) if it is to have any meaning at all, must refer to a right to keep and bear arms that is held directly by citizens and is not conditional on state sponsorship.”
Digging further, Heath discusses how the Supremes ruled in Houston v. Moore. “After a thorough and divisive consideration of the issue, all three justices who wrote opinions clearly agreed that in event of conflict, state militia regulation must yield to federal law. The Second Amendment, overlooked by most of the Court, was thought to have no important bearing on the matter even by the one justice who bothered to mention it.”
The confusing jurisprudence comes from a federal judiciary that wants to override both state-organized militias and individual RKBA.
>I would not expect the small, weak minds who show up at a place like this to have original thoughts.
Another fallacy, this time called “ad hominem.” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...ad-hominem.html
The inability to accommodate to a governing authority for guns is the same inability to accommodate to a governing authority. Any viable concept of a government authority becomes a police state.
GEErnst said:Any viable concept of a government authority becomes a police state.
>I tell people who want to have gun laws that make sense to acquire a gun, hold it up, and demand of the government to know where they go to enroll in the militia
>and put their private arms on the militia inventory as per the Militia Act of 1792
“Antigun” can mean many things. Some “antigun” people believe that it should be unlawful to own a semiautomatic rifle that has both a pistol grip. Others insist that no one besides government employees (police, military, intelligence agencies) should be allowed to possess firearms. Where do you stand on such weighty matters?
We have already addressed these issues in our briefs in Emerson and Parker.
I was at the Million Mom March in 2000. I could not find a single person out of hundreds asked who had heard of US v. Emerson. I was there again in 2004 and could not find a single person who had heard of Emerson, Seegars, or Parker.
Read Russell Weigley's History of the United States Army and Lawrence Cress' Citizen in Arms along side Hummel and Heath.
If Bellesiles fudged his research on probate records that is reprehensible.
You have offered no evidence that Halbrook committed from. Just accusations without evidence.If you want to examine fraud, why don't you start with the complete pseudoscholar Stephen Halbrook? In That Every Man Be Armed he gives 1306 footnotes in 197 pages. That is not unusual for serious scholarship. It is requisite for pseudoscholarship. He references Locke, Machiavelli, Aristotle and other. These classic works are available in many editions. He does not give the edition he is using so it is difficult to check the references. His purpose is to seduce week minds. He even suckered in Clarence Thomas.