signalmankenneth
Verified User
I always like to point out what a lie that is.
Nobody wanted to take Chuck's 230 year old musket from him.
A non-liar would've held an AK-47 over his head.
NRA's 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
I always like to point out what a lie that is.
Nobody wanted to take Chuck's 230 year old musket from him.
A non-liar would've held an AK-47 over his head.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
I always like to point out what a lie that is.
Nobody wanted to take Chuck's 230 year old musket from him.
A non-liar would've held an AK-47 over his head.
First of all, the reason he was holding that particular firearm over his head was that it had just been presented to him as a gift in recognition of his leadership of the organization.
Second of all, there are people (some with political power) that have stated that their goal is to ban privately owned firearms completely. They see the UK's system as desireable.
Third of all, the NRA has never ignored any portion of the 2nd amendment. It is just that the NRA, like the SCOTUS, has never interpreted the first part to be a restriction on the second part of that amendment.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
contrary to the desperate dreams and wishes of cowards, the 'well regulated militia' was never, not one single fucking time EVER, considered to be a body of people under strict control of the government.