"Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle?"
I'm sorry, I credited you with some intellegence, I see my error now. I expected you to read what I was saying to Doopa as well. Protecting your family does not necessitate ownership of firearms. Your interpretation of the Second Ammendment is selfish, ill concieved and barbaric. Yes, barbaric, for any solution which sees violence as an acceptable answer to any problem can be nothing else.
"You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job."
An insult is a demeaning or hurtful reproach which is generally expressed in an extreme view of reality. Like, "you are a cocksucker." What I did was comment on your character based upon the views you expressed.
". . . most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument."
I was trying to be nice. In actually, what you did was lie, thieve and decieve by taking someone else's intellectual property and try to represent it as your own original thought. The only reason I even recognized it, was because I'd read those comments by the original author previously and remembered thinking he had never read the original law. Apparantly, neither have you.
"The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time."
That is a matter of opinion.
"I was indirectly paraphrasing though."
Paraphrasing requires that you summarize what you have read, not steal three sentence and post them in their entirety.
"If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms."
That would not be a strong enough case to keep you from being charged guilty of copy right infringement were this a court of law and not a message board.
"Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice."
Extraordinary considering you managed to quote the passage VERBATIM.
"I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts."
Oh really? You:
"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment."
http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroa..._Rebuttal.html :
" `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . "
Now I just looked at the post I took your quote from, and I don't see any sources cited.
=-=-=-=-=-
"ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments."
Noone here is worth the time it would take to work up a strong sense of frustration, let alone hostility. You have think way too much of yourself. From what I've read of your posts, you are a twit, and I mean that as nicely as possible. You hold simplistic, provincial, self-centered views. Your speciality is pipe-dreaming, not politics, and I understand that so generally I leave you alone.
"I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government."
Thats because you have tunnel vision. Less sophisticated weaponry than what the US citizens currently have access to managed to thwart the Soviet Army twenty years ago. Plus, you are further more assuming that should situations become dire enough that revolution truly occours, that the Armed Services will support the Government.
"I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse."
If that is true, than you really don't understand at all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Uh, so you're saying we should revolt against the government by joining a group that is one of its largest contributors in campaign donations...?"
Kev, things have no decaryed so far that working within the system is yet an impossibility. The NRA are only a pressure group, defending the Second Ammendment right, and though they do so badlyy, and offer every reason but the one which accounts for its very existence, they at least try. I'm not a card carrying member, but I do support some of their views. Certainly that the Second Ammendment should not be infringed upon.