"I stated that the act had not been used without state request since 1965. Get the crap out of your eyes."

Irrelevant to your initial claim. You are trying to change your argument now that I have proven your initial claims about Posse Commitatus are bogus and your argument US troops would never be used against US citizens or if they were order to do so they would mutiny and not follow orders. And while on the subject, here is another fun fact for you:
https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bonus-army-attacked/

I have dozens of examples but I will keep doing them out to you one at a time in the hope you might learn something.

"And Eisenhower did not unilaterally order the 101st to Little Rock. He went to the Federal Court."

Laughably irrelevant rebuttal. The point was, quite contrary to your claim, State approval was not required to deploy Federal troops.

"You trotted out the Brennen Center, and their own analysts have claimed, with reasons, the I**********n Act is vague and in need of revision/amendment. So, which is it?"

Another clownish attempt to retort. Whether the aw needs an update does not alter the fact that it is a specific exception written into the PC law that you did not know about when you cited it without understanding it.

"And I have read the complete I**********n Act, and it's vague on its face"

Again laughable. Your opinion of the law does not make it not the law.

Whether you think it's "laughable" is irrelevant. It's bad law, and I never stated that my opinion made anything "the law".

You would not even survive a freshman high school debate. Boy would I LOVE to have you in cross-x. A good time would be guaranteed for all.Except you of course.

First part of the amendment is a "preamble"- which explains why this amendment is important to everyone in a free state - it is separated from the guts of the amendment- which is directed at the government- and only RESTRICTS THEM -THE GOVERNEMENT .

Preamble—
"A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

What follows is the law - note the precisely placed comma separating it from the preamble, theses details such as punctuation were carefully crafted and had meaning- there is no need for a comma, so it had a purpose of separating it from the preamble. ... and what follows is the clear concise language that all the (kings) Government's lawyers and all the (kings) governemt's men, nor Frankie poo's with underwear in a knot can't argue against or twist:

The law—
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The Mayor of Baltimore in her official reaction to unrest, mayhem, and destructions going on in parts of her city: "I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech," Rawlings-Blake said. "It's a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."

What she is saying is that anybody and any property within the boundaries she had the police fall back to and contain, leaving those abandoned within and the properties.. businesses, homes, cars.. children... should expect no protection, nor will those doing violence going to be stopped, they have free rein. - anybody trapped in there- were on their own. According to our constitution, and the right of self preservation and protections everyone was born with, you have a right to protect yourself and property- don't expect help- she said right here- none would be coming.

We have seen this time and time again, R**ts in LA, Storm in New Orleans, Storms anywhere- where people are left to their own devices to survive against other people unlawfully threatening them. What do you think would happen if unrest/ disaster or war spread far and wide, the government will fall back, try and create a space, you may not be in that "space". Or sadly, of the government turns on its people... like every government in history has done on the past.

I stated that the I**********n Act had not been used since 1965, WITHOUT state request. Still true, and it's absolutely relevant to the discussion.

You cherry-picked your citation from the Brennen Center. Why did you not use the entire article in summary?

In my twelve college hours of U.S. Military History, as well as my minor in political science, I believe I've studied the Veteran's March of the 1930's fairly well. That Douglas MacArthur should have been subject to general court martial for violating his orders is still discussed (albeit in moot talks) today. And the action took place on Federal property, thus unlikely that Hoover would have even thought about Federal Court. Neither George Patton nor Dwight Eisenhower garnered any humanitarian points that day.

Your entire premise is without belief and the stuff of fairy tales. I stand by my original premise, that no matter who is in charge, U.S. troops will not engage the American citizenry en masse. And that is Realville, not some Progressive fantasy about quoting the I**********n Act, or misquoting an article from the Brennen Center.

And my high school debate coach would have never allowed a premise so preposterous and fantastical to have been considered.

Thats what you dy now not what you said initially. Reread your initial response to me. The least you could do is give me some credit for making you do some research. But even your research has led you to erroneous conclusions ( a sure sign of motivated reasoning) but it was an attempt to educate yourself. Kudos.

And almost all of your attempts at rebuttal have been irrelevant to the point and so wide of the mark as to be downright comical. Seriously what you think of the I**********n Act (just one example of many nonsensical attempts at rebuttal) addresses no point made. None. And I would think that a person of 12 hours of Military History (12 hours!) would know better.

Amd I still would love to have you and your 12 hours of Military History in cross-x.