Summations Only

Ok I can't let this pass because it is utterly ridiculous and actually stupid. Either you know nothing about colonial US history or you are trying to pull a fast one.Massachusetts was royal colony. Its governor was appointed by the British government. Its legislature served at the pleasure of the British government. All Massachusetts provincial property was royal (Kings) property.You might want to do some research on the types of colonies. Here is a head start. The three types were, Royal, Charter and Proprietary.Care to try again? The US and actually no countries recognize the concept that an individual has sovereign rights. So your argument for individual sovereign rights has no support.

Please show where this is a right. Evidence? Antonin Scalia is a liberal? The peoples arms were not to be those of the military. Show this is true or retract. Join a well regulated militia and you can have access to those arms too. Why are you making our argument for us?

And with that you would be going against 220+ years of US history and jurisprudence. Tell me how that works for you.

And those writings have nothing to do with US law or the Constitution. They were propaganda pieces written to support the ratification of the Constitution. Yes they are important writings of some of the founders, but they are by no means accepted as a final authority.You want to us Alexander Hamilton as support for your views. What about when he disagrees with you? Do you just ignore that?

quote:

---

Federalist No. 78 discusses the power of judicial review. It argues that the federal courts have the duty to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional, and to follow the Constitution when there is inconsistency. Hamilton viewed this as a protection against abuse of power by Congress.

---

Finally what does what you quote from Hamilton have to do with what Dr. Adequate had to say about Hamilton not supporting a Bill of Rights.

Do you know how the colonists won the Revolutionary War? Indifference and lack of support in England and foreign intervention.The war would not have been won with out the arms, troops and sea power of the French Empire. Yes, you owe your freedom to the French Monarchy. Personal arms had jack shit to do with winning the Revolutionary War.

Is there a point you are trying to make about the Battle of New Orleans. Please make it. I don't watch videos to try to glean someones argument.

So you are now retracting all of your previous arguments?

All of his charts and graphs are worthless. He provides no source data for them and he hosts them on his own site. There is no reference as to who created them or what data they are based on.Without sourcing he isn't even worth responding to.

Still not providing any source info, so still not even worth looking at.

Show evidence that punishment is effective in correcting a childs behavior.One or two studies will suffice.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I thought you said you could change a magazine in .043 seconds or something like that.Your earlier argument was that banning high capacity magazines was stupid because you could change them so quickly. Now you need 30 rounds because you can't change them quickly?Could you please be consistent in your arguments?

Proving once again all you are is bluster.

You do realize laws have changed since 1792. Your definition does not come from the Constitution but from laws passed in 1792. One of those laws

quote:

---

provided for the authority of the president to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe."[3] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act".[4] This provision likely referred to uprisings such as Shays' Rebellion. The president's authority in both cases was to expire after two years.

---

So you actually seem to be advocating the nullification of US laws and sedition.

What is the manufacturer and model of this rifle? How quickly can you fire a 30 round mag and stay on target? Bullshit. It takes that long just to chamber the first round.

Are you really this dense?You are destroying your own arguments. As you stated previously in this same post, this was replaced by the militia act of 1903. The definition you use is no longer legally valid. Yes, do you?Your definition is not in the Constitution so what is your point? How could I name something that by definition does not exist?Edited by Theodoric, : own not won