You: SayUncle censors and threatens those who do not ‘toe’ the party line. I was banned there. SayUncle’s banning pretty well proves the point.
Me: SayUncle says you’re not banned there and I believe him.
You: You really shouldn’t believe Kevin Baker, he’s a notorious liar. He banned me.
Me: SayUncle is not Kevin Baker. SayUncle writes SayUncle. Kevin Baker writes The Smallest Minority. Kevin has banned you. SayUncle has not. Perhaps you owe SayUncle an apology.
You: Kevin Baker is a liar. I don’t owe liars apologies.
Kevin Baker and SayUncle are two different people, who write two different blogs. You are banned from one blog. You are not banned from the other blog. The one that you are NOT banned from is the one you keep accusing of banning you.
Are you truly this incapable of following a simple conversation? Why is this whooshing so completely over your head?
Comment by Guav — September 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Jade reply: Kevin Baker is still a liar. And a coward.
PA constitution:That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Jade:In reality, there is no ambiguity or conflict here. The fact is the PA Constitution specifically tied the bearing of arms to a state militia function.
"Then a quote from Virginia"
From the link: Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence, that distinction is material and must be attended to. [ L. Kinvin Wroth and Hiller B. Zobel, ed., Legal Papers of John Adams , (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press: 1965), 3:248.]
it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose -- either of business or amusement -- the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose -- and the mischievous result -- which essentially constitute the crime.
Jade:Cramer’s cite provided nothing WRT an individual right.
And a little more history via Saysuncle (who did not ban Jade):