Sick Gun Grabbers want all gun owners insured

SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay, let me put an end to all this gunner BS.

First, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Subsequently, this little ditty came about during Washingtons tenure as President: Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

And lastly, we have The Militia Act of 1903, which repealed the above and converted it into the National Guard.

I would STRONGLY urge all who believe the erroneous insinuations of the subject title of this thread to CAREFULLY go and read what I've named here....because I don't think that all the gunners and NRA toadies and suckers would be willing to actually ADHERE to the letter of the law regarding gun ownership AS DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS.
Click to expand...

you're a moron if you think an act of congress can repeal an amendment to the constitution. end of story.
Click to expand...

OMG! Who do think CREATE the Amendments, you blithering idiot!!??!!? Did you even READ the Militia Act of 1903? Stop playing "got'cha".....if an Amendment cancels out/nullifies/replaces the effects of a previous enaction of the Constitution, then that part of the law is "repealed". Different roads, same final destination. Deal with it.
I swear, the proud ignorance of the oather/threeper/birther/libertarian/neocon/teabagger mind never ceases to amaze me. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
OMG! Who do think CREATE the Amendments, you blithering idiot!!??!!? Did you even READ the Militia Act of 1903? Stop playing "got'cha".....if an Amendment cancels out/nullifies/replaces the effects of a previous enaction of the Constitution, then that part of the law is "repealed". Different roads, same final destination. Deal with it.
I swear, the proud ignorance of the oather/threeper/birther/libertarian/neocon/teabagger mind never ceases to amaze me. Carry on.
Click to expand...
listen up, idiot. amendments come from two places, either congress or the states. the militia act is NOT an amendment to the constitution, got that in your thick assed skull? your idiocy never ceases to amaze the rest of us.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
OMG! Who do think CREATE the Amendments, you blithering idiot!!??!!? Did you even READ the Militia Act of 1903? Stop playing "got'cha".....if an Amendment cancels out/nullifies/replaces the effects of a previous enaction of the Constitution, then that part of the law is "repealed". Different roads, same final destination. Deal with it.
I swear, the proud ignorance of the oather/threeper/birther/libertarian/neocon/teabagger mind never ceases to amaze me. Carry on.
Click to expand...
listen up, idiot. amendments come from two places, either congress or the states. the militia act is NOT an amendment to the constitution, got that in your thick assed skull? your idiocy never ceases to amaze the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Put your dress down......I made an error in saying "Constitution" when I should have said "previous Act of 1792".

Feel better now, bunky? Because if you and your ilk REALLY are into following how the Constitution applies to gun ownership, then you have to take into account THE ENTIRE Second Amendment, and THEN the LAWS that were based on that Amendment (Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903)...and I don't think your ideological ass is up to the task.

Like I said before....America has been acting on the premise the "The Constitution doesn't specifically say I can't privately own a gun outside of a militias.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Put your dress down......I made an error in saying "Constitution" when I should have said "previous Act of 1792".

Feel better now, bunky? Because if you and your ilk REALLY are into following how the Constitution applies to gun ownership, then you have to take into account THE ENTIRE Second Amendment, and THEN the LAWS that were based on that Amendment (Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903)...and I don't think your ideological ass is up to the task.

Like I said before....America has been acting on the premise the "The Constitution doesn't specifically say I can't privately own a gun outside of a militias.
Click to expand...
who is the militia at the time of the ratification? it certainly wasn't the national guard since it didn't exist then. it damned sure wasn't the standing army that the founders feared, is it? no, the militia was, and is, WE THE PEOPLE. that would be you and I. i'm MORE than up to the task of schooling you in the constitution, don't ever forget it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Put your dress down......I made an error in saying "Constitution" when I should have said "previous Act of 1792".

Feel better now, bunky? Because if you and your ilk REALLY are into following how the Constitution applies to gun ownership, then you have to take into account THE ENTIRE Second Amendment, and THEN the LAWS that were based on that Amendment (Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903)...and I don't think your ideological ass is up to the task.

Like I said before....America has been acting on the premise the "The Constitution doesn't specifically say I can't privately own a gun outside of a militias.
Click to expand...

Are you really that damn ignorant. The militia was the citizens back then, militias were private citizens retaining their own weapons coming together when called upon to protect their community or the nation. . Recent SCOTUS rulings counter your silly argument . Do try to educate yourself. Good grief..
 
OnearmSword said:
Are you really that damn ignorant. The militia was the citizens back then, militias were private citizens retaining their own weapons coming together when called upon to protect their community or the nation. . Recent SCOTUS rulings counter your silly argument . Do try to educate yourself. Good grief..
Click to expand...

Actually, the SCOTUS reiterated the fact that the militia became the National Guard.
 
Howey said:
Actually, the SCOTUS reiterated the fact that the militia became the National Guard.
Click to expand...

Actually, the SCOTUS has ruled "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually, the SCOTUS has ruled "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Click to expand...

3 times in fact.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Put your dress down......I made an error in saying "Constitution" when I should have said "previous Act of 1792".

Feel better now, bunky? Because if you and your ilk REALLY are into following how the Constitution applies to gun ownership, then you have to take into account THE ENTIRE Second Amendment, and THEN the LAWS that were based on that Amendment (Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903)...and I don't think your ideological ass is up to the task.

Like I said before....America has been acting on the premise the "The Constitution doesn't specifically say I can't privately own a gun outside of a militias.
Click to expand...
who is the militia at the time of the ratification? it certainly wasn't the national guard since it didn't exist then. it damned sure wasn't the standing army that the founders feared, is it? no, the militia was, and is, WE THE PEOPLE. that would be you and I. i'm MORE than up to the task of schooling you in the constitution, don't ever forget it.
Click to expand...

And STY gives a perfect example of the convoluted "logic" used by gunners to justify their beliefs and convictions. Instead of READING the Militia Acts and noting the progression of the the dates, STY instead throws logic and historical fact out the window to somehow reverse the order of progression, and then tries to replace facts with his usual nonsense.

We the people make up the militia, dimwit.....and that has to be "well regulated", something that will not be infringed upon. A militia is regulated by the State and can be coveted by the Federal gov't in times of crisis. For God's sake, get up to speed and READ the information put before you instead of constantly vomiting up this NRA supposition and conjecture.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And STY gives a perfect example of the convoluted "logic" used by gunners to justify their beliefs and convictions. Instead of READING the Militia Acts and noting the progression of the the dates, STY instead throws logic and historical fact out the window to somehow reverse the order of progression, and then tries to replace facts with his usual nonsense.

We the people make up the militia, dimwit.....and that has to be "well regulated", something that will not be infringed upon. A militia is regulated by the State and can be coveted by the Federal gov't in times of crisis. For God's sake, get up to speed and READ the information put before you instead of constantly vomiting up this NRA supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...
good god you're a moron. find out what the framers meant by well regulated and you might be worth talking to. until then, you're full of shit and convoluted historical lies.
 
OnearmSword said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Put your dress down......I made an error in saying "Constitution" when I should have said "previous Act of 1792".

Feel better now, bunky? Because if you and your ilk REALLY are into following how the Constitution applies to gun ownership, then you have to take into account THE ENTIRE Second Amendment, and THEN the LAWS that were based on that Amendment (Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903)...and I don't think your ideological ass is up to the task.

Like I said before....America has been acting on the premise the "The Constitution doesn't specifically say I can't privately own a gun outside of a militias.
Click to expand...


Are you really that damn ignorant. The militia was the citizens back then, militias were private citizens retaining their own weapons coming together when called upon to protect their community or the nation. . Recent SCOTUS rulings counter your silly argument . Do try to educate yourself. Good grief..
Click to expand...

YOU are the one who is ignorant, my uni-sword arm friend. The Second Amendment addressed what was happening and available at the time....the Militiaa Act of 1792 (under President Washington) DETAILED EXACTLY WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF THAT MILITIA. If dolts like you didn't get it the first time, Washington and company sure as hell spelled it out in 1792 legislation. Later in history, the Militia Act of 1903 effectively replaced that with the National Guard...bringing things up to modern times. READ IT, and stop parroting your supposition and conjecture as fact....cause it isn't!
 
WinterBorn said:
Actually, the SCOTUS has ruled "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Click to expand...

Actually, that one only in ONE specific case, and it was NOT a national edict that officially nullified the Militia Act of 1903. This was already addressed.

In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=174
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And STY gives a perfect example of the convoluted "logic" used by gunners to justify their beliefs and convictions. Instead of READING the Militia Acts and noting the progression of the the dates, STY instead throws logic and historical fact out the window to somehow reverse the order of progression, and then tries to replace facts with his usual nonsense.

We the people make up the militia, dimwit.....and that has to be "well regulated", something that will not be infringed upon. A militia is regulated by the State and can be coveted by the Federal gov't in times of crisis. For God's sake, get up to speed and READ the information put before you instead of constantly vomiting up this NRA supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...
good god you're a moron. find out what the framers meant by well regulated and you might be worth talking to. until then, you're full of shit and convoluted historical lies.
Click to expand...

We know what the framers meant because they (ie., President George Washington) elucidated with the Militia Act of 1792....something you're too frightened to read.
 
OnearmSword said:
Does not exist. He could find no good counter so he flat out lied. Which happens all the time with liberals/leftists.
Click to expand...

First jokers like you have to READ the Militia Act of 1903 first.....then maybe your research skills will have direction beyond wishful thinking and NRA rhetoric.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
I told you that the sick gun grabbers will stop at nothing to eventually get all our guns, one way or another, check this out..... http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/d...owners-who-dont-have-insurance/#ixzz2PJLZGKaW
Click to expand...
I am happy to say that there will be no new gun laws passed this year, and Obama basically admitted the "defeet" today in his speech, which I saw on CNN. You gun grabbers need to wake up and smell the gun powder. Why don't you go buy a gun and learn how to shoot it, and then your constipation will probably go away because you caved and gave up, just like Obama did. Just relax and fire a couple hundred rounds off at the range, this will relieve all the gun grabber pent-up tension you people obviously have and cure your constipation....Walla....eureka(I have found it)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top