Another response to A Well Regulated Militia...:

Someone calling himself "mea" wrote to a "collectivist" (me) to defend the absolute right to bear arms. Judging from his rambling and largely incoherent messages, he favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution and, when that doesn't work, a reliance on "natural rights" derived from God. Our previous exchanges were too scattershot to post, but this one had some comments worth noting.

A collectivist strikes back

"mea,"

A "collectivist" strikes back...and kicks your butt, as promised.

>> The United States Constitution bars any 'mere' political subdivision from abridging the Constitution. Therefore, Amendment 2 controls every element of the government US : federal -- State -- County -- Muni -- local/dist. -- agency. <<

Okay...so? Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't prohibit the federal regulation of arms, I guess it doesn't prohibit the state or local regulation of arms either.

When states pass regulations that don't abridge the Constitution—such as those controlling guns or air pollution—the state regulations can be tougher than their federal counterparts. The 9th and 10th Amendments explain why.

>> 1.2 As you seem to realize, 'they' are a selective segment of the most modern firepower of the day. As in all of History, germs and diseases are the weapons of choice when they have the greatest effect. Every conventional and N.B.C. weapon is always available to whomever has the Money to buy them. <<

Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons may be "available," but they're also illegal. Try buying one and see what happens. I'll look forward to your next e-mail from jail.

>> The absolute right to own and posses the most modern firepower of the day; far from theory, is the legal and political fact and Law Underpinning the very American Constitution. <<

"The legal and political fact" is what the president, the Congress, and especially the courts say it is.

>> As an inherent Natural Right, like all other absolute rights -- the Lawful Citizens right to purchase, keep, and bear arms at will not only cannot be impinged by Rule making -- there is no requirement that it be stipulated. <<

Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Show me the objective source for your so-called natural rights.

No, don't bother. There's no such thing. Rights are what society says they are—no more and no less.

Founders believed in natural rights...so?
The Founding Fathers believed "all men" were created equal. They didn't believe that of women or minorities, whom they didn't grant equal rights. So does the natural right of freedom include women and minorities? Apparently not.

Either that, or the Founding Fathers misinterpreted the concept of natural rights. Which shows how subjective and useless the concept is. No "right" based on God or any other supernatural power has any real existence.

>> 3.2 It is collectivist legal and political hacks : the 'crack-pot collectivist "fanatics", such as your self, posing as judicial Officers and learned people who are "making up and attempting to force on America by fiat and judicial decree [all utterly void legal fiction = bullshit. <<

Like I said, you can't find another person supporting your fanatical view that American citizens have the right to own nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Thanks for proving my point with your non-answer.

>> The 2nd Amendment means what the Supreme Court says it means. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the Constitution.

4.2 No ! Absolutely not ! <<

Yes, absolutely. Read the Constitution so I don't have to do it for you. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court." In child's terms that even you can't misunderstand: Supreme Court...adjudicates (affirms or denies)...the law.

>> the USC Does Not Mean What the SPC says it does -- not only is such Interpretation barred by the Constitution <<

Quote me the section of the Constitution that bars judicial interpretation. No, don't bother. You can't because there's no such thing.

>> the very suggestion that a Government of Law is subject to interpretation is incredibly STUPID... <<

Thank you once again for proving you don't know jack about constitutional law. When you gain more than a kindergartner's understanding of it, get back to me.

Marbury v. Madison is moot?
>> See Marbury V Madison. A moot case that controls the entire USC. You must know someone who can successfully pull the case, read it, and explain it to you. <<

I probably read it while you were in diapers.

You might want to look up the word "moot," since it suggests Marbury v. Madison is no longer operative. If that's what you think, you're sadly mistaken. Marbury v. Madison is very much alive.

>> It is ONLY you collectivist legal hacks who assert that the judiciary has the authority to interpret the Constitution. <<

So a key Founding Father supported the judicial interpretation of the national laws. The Founding Fathers understood and accepted the idea well before Marbury v. Madison. End of story.

Moreover, the Founding Fathers were a party to Marbury v. Madison. They didn't overthrow the Supreme Court when they heard Marshall's decision. They accepted it because it reflected their thinking.

>> In which moment you are committing the Traditional Crime "Judicial Usurpation" <<

Spare me your made-up fantasies. "Judicial usurpation" isn't a crime. I doubt it appears anywhere in federal law. I couldn't care less if this fairy-tale bogeyman upsets you. Go cry to your mommy and quit wasting my time.

>> 4.4 The way it works is -- the USC organizes 'a Government by Law' <<

"A Government by Law" or "of Law" is another of your fantasies. The phrases don't appear in the Constitution itself, which is the only source for our laws. Again, I couldn't care less if you and your fellow fanatics have conjured some imaginary concept. It'll die with you just like all your other nonsense.

"mea" uses more big words he doesn't understand
>> you legalistic collectivist political hacks [200 Years later] only now find yourselves entering the final stages of your drive to convert America's governments to "your" "typical, Socialist Police State, free from the Rule of Law." <<

Clearly you don't know what "socialist" or "collectivist" means any more than you know what the 2nd Amendment means. Try to define them if you think you can.

And to reiterate, the Founding Fathers wanted a strong central government, as I proved in The Founders' Original Intent. Deal with that too.

>> 6.2 free people do not just laugh at your lies, we take them in whole [see above], and apply the Law to them. <<

As I said, I couldn't care less what you do in your little daydreams. You obviously don't have much of a case, since I've just kicked your butt as promised. Better luck next time.

>> Dealing with Law, Facts, and material History, Free Lawful Men only 'prove a case in court' <<

Well, you didn't prove your case here. Hope you do better in court.

>> in the community at large we simply display 'truth' and 'actual Historical fact" <<

Marbury v. Madison is an actual historical fact, as is the Founding Father's intent to establish judicial review as shown in Federalist No. 80. Again, deal with it, or don't. I don't care.

>> Hence, our advantage vs. Collectivists rests in 'your need' to keep making-up New, Progressive, Politically Correct Krap <<

You misspelled "crap," dimwit. Your screed is laced with spelling, capitalization, and punctuation mistakes. Don't try to be a professional writer like me because an editor would laugh in your face.

And who's making anything up? I've quoted the Constitution itself and a Federalist Paper supporting it. You haven't quoted anything except your own opinions. "Natural rights"? Find them somewhere in the Constitution and then we'll discuss them.

"mea" capitalizes "Truth" to impress someone
>> the Truth and Actual History, our weapons, are constant. <<

Yawn. Feel free to offer either the truth or actual history if they're so constant. You haven't done it yet.

Again, I've quoted the source material. You've quoted your own opinions. Quit your boring braying and start backing your so-called truth with evidence.

>> 7.2 The "well regulated Militia" that you speak of "specifically 'designates' the citizens [their posterity] who choose to turn out and open fire at Lexington, Concord, and Boston". <<

Says who? Your opinion couldn't be more irrelevant to this issue. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court." Quote me the Supreme Court's judicial ruling on militias or give it up.

>> 7.3 Because collectivists, such as yourself, choose to deal in lies, none of you care that the "well regulated Citizen Militia was in the field" <<

Where is "well regulated Citizen Militia was in the field" a quote from? Oh, don't tell me. You put quote marks around your own made-up phrase to make it look more impressive. What a surprise.

>> 8.2 As we see above, I merely use "the Truth", "the actual Law as it is Written", and "the know Historical Record as it comes to us" to expose you and your collectivist lies. <<

More phrases you've pompously capitalized and surrounded with quotes to make your words sound important? Ho-hum. How transparent and trite. Such a juvenile form of argumentation.

So when are you going to start exposing my "lies"? I'm waiting.

>> 8.3 As we can see, above, all you have are the current packs of crack-pot PCK lies you just make-up as you go along in your never ending drive to advance your viciously stupid "obsolete collectivist agenda". <<

You keep spending an hour or two writing your semi-coherent rants. I'll keep spending 15 minutes dismissing them because they're so weak and insubstantial. That way you'll waste your entire life trying to knock me down.

What "mea" really wants
With your references to made-up concepts like "natural rights" and "the Government by Law," it's clear you want the "right" to make up the Constitution also. As far as I can tell, your position is "the 2nd Amendment allows an unlimited right to bear arms because I say it does." Good luck getting other Americans to support that interpretation.

While you're at it, check the other responses at A Well Regulated Militia.... Yours isn't close to being the most persuasive one. These critics could probably dismiss your simplistic arguments as well as I've done.

>> 8.5 I will be sending copies of this people the people I meet traveling the wire... your response is probably the best sales tool I have for convincing people that they should 'bookmark' your site as the current only sources to keep up on Collectivist lies and Bullshit. <<

I agree they should bookmark my site. I couldn't care less why they and you visit it. Just keep visiting and boosting my traffic numbers, please.

>> I now understand the statement "if you did not exist, we would most certainly have to invent you." <<

If true, that would be the first thing you've understood. Glad I could be of service.

>> mae @ ...by definition and History a 'well regulated militia' 'was not then' and 'is not now' "under the Regulation and "...! <<

You misspelled your own initials, doofus. Hysterical. If you're trying to amuse me, you're doing a great job of it.

Whose definition? What history? Quit telling me your opinions and quote the definitions and history if you can. List your sources so I and others can verify them.

>> Hamilton [Collectivist, advancing his own Central Banking scheme -- Yes, one of your ever lying guys] agrees <<

Is Madison also a collectivist? Because he largely wrote the Constitution and cooperated with Hamilton in writing the Federalist Papers to promote it. If you don't buy the Constitution as written, or the leading proponents of the Constitution (Hamilton and Madison), whose opinion do you buy? Whom do you think was the great keeper of American "truth"?

Jefferson? How do you explain his Louisiana Purchase? I don't see anything about spending large sums to acquire foreign land in the Constitution. Looks like Jefferson was an interpreter also.

"mea" dismisses Founders he doesn't like
And what if Washington, Adams, and Hamilton were "collectivists" (your word)? Oops, I guess the majority of the Founding Fathers—of which these three were prominent—wanted a strong central government. As I've already stated and shown.

>> through the text of his statement that 'whereas the militia is not now' [thus, never had been] <<

Why would "not now" imply "never had been"? "Not now" means only "not at present." It doesn't mean never. Even on the small points, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

>> "it ought certainly to be under the regulation"... [though it is not now, at sometime in the future it should be.] <<

That "future" would be when the Founding Fathers passed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the phrase "a well regulated militia." It happened a few years after Hamilton wrote his paper. That's the milestone he was writing about and it came to pass because of his writing.

>> mea @ You could Learn to Read -- and then, Read the Fedralist Papers before you cite -- sight -- site them. <<

So you don't know the difference between "cite," "sight," and "site"? Another shocker.

I've quoted the Federalist Papers accurately. You haven't quoted diddly-squat. When you find a Federalist Paper proclaiming the unlimited right to bear arms, feel free to quote it. Don't hold your breath while you're searching, junior, because no such quote exists.

Meanwhile, imagine me laughing at your childish insults. I heard better when I was in grade school several decades ago. I can't begin to convey how little I care about your ignorant and unsubstantiated opinions—about me and the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia...," son. Read 'em and weep.

Rob

P.S. Don't expect me to spend even this much debating your fantasies in the future. If I get back to you in several months, it'll be too soon.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .