Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

Morton Davis wrote:
> 
> "Bert Hyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Krulick) wrote in news:3FCCA746.8AF603F1
> > @krulick.com:
> >
> > > No, Silly Snout.
> >
> > Hmmm... that's quite a strong argument you present.
> >
> 
> It's all he has.

No, that is all that Snipping Bert left in! ALL I had was what
he disingenuously removed, thusly:

No, Silly Snout. Militia service was already compulsory
conscript duty in the states. The purpose of the Militia Act was
to fulfill the Constitutional mandate that empowered Congress
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States," by spelling out exactly
HOW they were to do that. The organizing part said WHO would be
in the militia and who not, and how it would be structured. The
arming part, as far as individual militiamen went, said EACH
would have to provide HIS OWN particular militia arms and
supplies, even down to bags and cleaning equipment. The
discipline was the code and regulations that the states were
then required to follow.
> 
> So it's clear that all the available manpower were not organized into the
> militia since otherwise the Militia Act wouldn't have been necessary.

False and plain stupid. Each state's militia was already
organized and "universal." The need was to establish the NEW
consistent organization to allow for possible federalized
service, so that any and all militia units would be on the same
page, as it were, no matter which state they hailed from, when
acting under federal governing. The Militia Act was the
necessary legislation to flesh out Art 1, Sec 8, Clauses 15 and
16 re the militia, in keeping with the goals of the 2nd Amen as
well. Without the Militia Act, the Congress could NOT have
fulfilled its constitutional mandate!

> Further it is also historical fact that not all militias were organized by
> the States,

So you opine. But THEY, if they even WERE militias by actual
definition, and not just YOUR blatant assertion, were of no
constitutional significance. Some evidence other than your mere
say so would help here.

> even though they did exist, and did serve with distinction in
> support of this nation.

Cite? Proof?

Oh, I bet you think the "Sons of Liberty" were a militia! Not by
any stretch of any authoritative definition!


As you can see, it was more than HE or YOU claim it "all" to be!

So he's a disingenuous fraud, and you are a buffoon, BrainDead,
for agreeing with him.

> That and cut and paste of the same stuff he's been posting
> since before 2000.

Can you show where ANY of the above post of mine was cut and
pasted from ANY previous post (other than my reposting here,
that is)! It's all new, freshly written, just as this material
is here, for the specific post.

You really don't have anything NEW to say, do you, BrainDead?

> Recentlt, he quoted a post I made in 2001 about Thomas
> Jefferson that I got from a supposedly reputable site.

And don't forget Washington! Just shows how lame your research
skills are, BrainDead. It took me two minutes to locate proof of
the hoax nature of BOTH quotes!

Sure anyone can make ONE error, but when you are called on it,
to stubbornly KEEP posting the SAME bogus material as if to
prove you COULDN'T have been duped, and how could KRULICK be
right, shows you to be more than guilty of just a mistake. You
WILLFULLY and proudly insisted on reposting the bogus material,
and refused to accept even what the pro-gun sites said about
them. That's just stupid, compounded.

> A;though dozens of
> uses of the same quote can be found in web sites and published works,

Blah blah, backpedal, justify, make excuses.

> giving
> it the aire of authenticity, Krulick continues to claim I knowingly lied -

ONCE it was pointed out, you kept posting it, hence further
disseminating the falsehood. The correct thing would have been
to cease and desist, pending a thorough check. But, no, YOU
couldn't be wrong, and *I* couldn't be right!

Anyway, would you like me to list the other lies I've caught you
in?

> something rulick does in every post.

Something YOU have yet to prove, liar. I've challenged you to do
this repeatedly, but you have still failed to give proof of ONE
lie, much less lying in every post! So, just cite me lying,
demonstrate it's a lie, and prove I'm knowingly passing off as
true what I admit to be untrue. Or be proven a liar.
 
> However, in the most recent post of mine which Krulick took umbrage to, I
> did not quote Jefferson.

I didn't say you did, strawslinger. THAT wasn't the point I was
making, side-stepper.

> I refered to Ted Kennedy getting visually upset
> about another Thomas Jefferson quote, which I did not quote at all.

I didn't say you did. YOU questioned whether Teddy would
recognize the DoI, and I found it ironic that YOU could
recognize a quote that HADN'T been said! 

> LIEING is what Steve Krulick does.

That would be "lying" if it were so, you illiterate maroon, but
it isn't.

All you have to do is show an example of me lying, ONCE, and
then prove it. But you never have, you never will, and so either
you are just bloviating, or just lying yourself. Either way, go
suck an egg, BrainDead!

You're really not worth the time to respond to, other than the
pure entertainment value. 

> -*MORT*-
BrainDead, and just one big bag of bilious hot air

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727