Sasquatch
I do what you can't.

You're in the army, right? Or you were.. I was just curious to know what kind of training you went through, both physical and mental and if you can give any kind of examples of how I might be able to replicate the intensity via exercise programs.

Happy birthday sir.

You still alive, man? Long time no hear from you. You doin' okay?

SPOILER!!:

No, I don't. But I have more respect for the Constitution then the Supreme Court does.

Nice red herring, though.

Your definition of a militia is illegal under the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. It was illegal back during World War II and Vietnam, and it's still illegal now.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

But then, of course, if anybody attempts to use the constitution to defend their rights (), the Supreme Court would rule that states have an obligation to raise a militia for homeland defense, and if the states don't comply, and deliberately go against the 13th Amendment to satisfy the Supreme Court's warped view of the 2nd Amendment (), the government would withhold federal funding, because they're a bunch of corrupt crooks who view people as tools instead of as human beings.

You are correct. The constitution doesn't have to declare who is militia, because it's obvious that militia is anybody belonging to an organized militia organization.

It's funny watching you try to argue that everybody alive on earth is militia and must go to war when needed, no questions asked.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state simply means that a well regulated militia is necessary to provide national security in a time of crisis. People who don't even know how to use a gun aren't classified as "well regulated," nor "militia."

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed simply gives people the right to own firearms. This statement, however, does not have any sort of significant relation to the first.

If the amendment meant "every gun owner or non gun owner who is of military age is militia," then it would have said that. The constitution isn't cryptic, so stop suggesting that it is. It's straight forward. If you're too stubborn to realize what it means, then that's on you.

You argue to prove that you're right, but you have to constantly argue because you're constantly wrong. Give it up. You don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.

Conscription drafts anybody into military service, not just somebody who owns a gun. By that standpoint, every single able-bodied male of military age are the militia, which isn't true at all.

Despite the fact that constriction is wrong, it should be up to the individual whether or not to volunteer for military service. That includes gun owners who are apparently part of some kind of organized militia. We aren't a tyranny, and it seems tyrannical to be forced to kill.

If he isn't part of any militia organization, then he can't be called upon in a time of crisis, so no, he is not part of militia. It isn't his job. Just as it isn't the job of ordinary gun owners to be forced to partake in, or classify themselves as part of a a militia.

The second amendment is in two parts. If you want to apply the first part to the second part, then by all means, do so, but that doesn't make it in context.

I'm not going to respond to you in the thread, because I don't have that much to say.

You can trust my redneck shotgun wielding Uncle Buck and his drunken buddies at his hunting lodge to stand up and defend America from any threat, but even I'm smart enough to know that simply because a group of people possess firearms doesn't make them a militia.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday man! Hope you're enjoying a tall frosty at the bar.

Happy Birthday! Hope you have a great one

Happy birthday, mate.