Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hmmmmm... I knew there was a juicy rationalization in there someplace, but that got me Googling for it, and led me to do a little lightweight wiki-reading on the subject, to begin to remedy my ignorance on the subject... thanks......There is nothing Constitutional about executive orders, it is a tradition started by George Washington...
The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.
Much like the IRS and income tax....Hmmmmm... I knew there was a juicy rationalization in there someplace, but that got me Googling for it, and led me to do a little lightweight wiki-reading...There is nothing Constitutional about executive orders, it is a tradition started by George Washington...
Executive order - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
An interesting and grey-area aspect of national governance...
Now that's an interesting argument, that the ratifiers of the Constitution were thinking only of the firearm, not the balls, powder, wadding, or ramrod. Are you seriously posing that argument?
What's the Federal Code Annotated I can research that with?The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.
The Supreme Court already ruled that your argument is bullshit. Yes, they actually ruled that you are an ass.
There is nothing Constitutional about executive orders, it is a tradition started by George Washington...I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.
First of all, there is zero chance of that happening which any person of even minimal intelligence understands. Furthermore, Executive Orders have to be Constitutional and banning ammunition would not be Constitutional because it would be an act of the president legislating unilaterally. Legislation has to be passed by the Congress. The president can't write and declare his own laws.
Executive orders have to be constitutional? Have you been paying attention to this president?
Now that's an interesting argument, that the ratifiers of the Constitution were thinking only of the firearm, not the balls, powder, wadding, or ramrod. Are you seriously posing that argument?
I don't think it matters to you, you'd bow in total submission to the police when they come to take your ammo.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaWhat's the Federal Code Annotated I can research that with?The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.
The Supreme Court already ruled that your argument is bullshit. Yes, they actually ruled that you are an ass.
BATFE wants to lift the AP exemption on 5.56x45 SS109 rounds because there are handguns based on AR-15 receivers.I've heard some say that it does and others say that POTUS is able to sign an executive order banning ammo.
The justification for this change is utter BS and aims to do nothing more than raise the price of .223/5.56x45 ammo.
Now that's an interesting argument, that the ratifiers of the Constitution were thinking only of the firearm, not the balls, powder, wadding, or ramrod. Are you seriously posing that argument?
I don't think it matters to you, you'd bow in total submission to the police when they come to take your ammo.
You're turning into a troll. I used to like you.
thanks...District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaWhat's the Federal Code Annotated I can research that with?The Second refers to the formation of regulated milita, and uses the natural right of self-defense as justification.
The Supreme Court already ruled that your argument is bullshit. Yes, they actually ruled that you are an ass.
Now that's an interesting argument, that the ratifiers of the Constitution were thinking only of the firearm, not the balls, powder, wadding, or ramrod. Are you seriously posing that argument?
I don't think it matters to you, you'd bow in total submission to the police when they come to take your ammo.
You're turning into a troll. I used to like you.
You're the one who clearly stated that any person who plans on using their Second Amendment right to resist tyranny should be locked up in a mental institution.
You say the Second Amendment is there to resist tyrants, right? Who exactly do you think will be protecting the tyrants? The easter bunny? You think Obama himself is going to show up to your door to take your ammo, or will it be the police?
What will YOU do when the POLICE come for the ammunition and firearms?
You're the one who clearly stated that any person who plans on using their Second Amendment right to resist tyranny should be locked up in a mental institution.
You say the Second Amendment is there to resist tyrants, right? Who exactly do you think will be protecting the tyrants? The easter bunny? You think Obama himself is going to show up to your door to take your ammo, or will it be the police?
What will YOU do when the POLICE come for the ammunition and firearms?
Keep your fantasies about killing police officers to your damn self, Loony toons.
To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.
The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.
On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.
To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.
The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.
On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.
Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?
Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.
To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.
The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.
On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.
Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?
Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.
Read the next half of the Second.
Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.
To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.
The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.
On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.
Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?
Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.
Read the next half of the Second.
Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.
That part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.
Only boot-licking government toadies believe the government can abridge your rights. The constitution says your rights can be abridged only by "due process of law." That means a jury trial. That's the only way your rights can be abridged. The ATF doesn't have the authority to abridge your 2nd Amendment rights with some Obama Executive Order.
To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.
The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.
On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.
Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?
Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.
Read the next half of the Second.
Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.
That part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.
Only boot-licking government toadies believe the government can abridge your rights. The constitution says your rights can be abridged only by "due process of law." That means a jury trial. That's the only way your rights can be abridged. The ATF doesn't have the authority to abridge your 2nd Amendment rights with some Obama Executive Order.
You just proved my argument!
Also, apparently you've not heard of gun permits, etc.
Jury trial. LOL.
To recap, the Second actually doesn't defend the right to bear arms. Rather it uses the right to bear arms to justify the formation of regulated militias.
The reason for this is that the right to bear arms is a natural right and thus does not require government approval. It's a natural right because it's part of the right to defend oneself and loved ones.
On the other hand, defending strangers (like fellow countrymen) is not a natural right and requires government enforcement. Ironically, that's where the Second comes in, together with Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.
Finally, natural rights may be abridged by law for one reason or another. Hence, government units may impose gun control. In turn, citizens who are against this may vote for government officials who do not support such.
Horseshit. All the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are natural rights. What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't protect the right to bear arms?
Furthermore, how can you say rights can be infringed when the BOR says it shall not be infringed? You're spewing government doublespeak.
Read the next half of the Second.
Rights can be abridged by the law for many reasons. That's why those in prison are not allowed to bear arms. That's why some states practice capital punishment.
That part is purely explanatory. It has no legal implications.
Only boot-licking government toadies believe the government can abridge your rights. The constitution says your rights can be abridged only by "due process of law." That means a jury trial. That's the only way your rights can be abridged. The ATF doesn't have the authority to abridge your 2nd Amendment rights with some Obama Executive Order.
You just proved my argument!
Also, apparently you've not heard of gun permits, etc.
Jury trial. LOL.
I'm well aware of the fact that government infringes on our Constitutional rights, and it has come up with a thousand excuses for doing so. It also has an army of toadies that will defend its actions. Apparently you believe that since murder still occurs that it must be legal.
