Simple Poll: Which came first?

[Two Thumbs]

Who asked you anything about religion?

Did you read it, nitwit? No? Of course you didn't.

You said religion and I seldom if ever do religion, so. . .

I don't give a shit.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

....And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

Ya ignorant jackass.

Ok, you assumed I hadn't read it when I had.

So, what is your point with the cut and paste?

That you're an ignorant jackass.

Your off, way off, topic fuck chop.

start your own religion thread or get on topic

 

[Two Thumbs]

No they weren't. They had weapons at home and ready to go to fight if need be, they hunted.

Get yourself a muzzle loader if you think the 2nd amendment is so relevant today.

A muzzle loader was state of the art firearm back in the day.

Using the same level of arguments the founding fathers would've limited everyone to bows and arrows outside of the government.

If the Native Americans would have had the bow and arrows we have today, there would be no USofA.

Actually, if they understood that their bows and arrows were more effective and could fire faster than muzzle loaders, and they understood that the Europeans were coming here to take over their country, there would be no USA.

It wasn't until later, when better weapons were developed (six shooter, Winchester rifle), that the Native Americans finally understood that Europeans were taking over.

One, the range of the rifle far outstripped the ability of people on foot to close distance.
Two, they didn't have a country.
Three, the slaughtered each other over land, so they knew or should have known, what was going on.
Four, conquest is often a numbers game.


Stop getting your history from msn.

 

[Chuz Life]

Did you read it, nitwit? No? Of course you didn't.

You said religion and I seldom if ever do religion, so. . .

I don't give a shit.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

....And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

Ya ignorant jackass.

Ok, you assumed I hadn't read it when I had.

So, what is your point with the cut and paste?

That you're an ignorant jackass.

Your off, way off, topic fuck chop.

start your own religion thread or get on topic

Fuck chop!

I'm stealing that one. Lol

 

[Disir]

Did you read it, nitwit? No? Of course you didn't.

You said religion and I seldom if ever do religion, so. . .

I don't give a shit.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

....And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

Ya ignorant jackass.

Ok, you assumed I hadn't read it when I had.

So, what is your point with the cut and paste?

That you're an ignorant jackass.

Your off, way off, topic fuck chop.

start your own religion thread or get on topic

No, I'm not fucknut. What you nitwits cannot do is divorce that right from where it came from and why it came into existence. That's your history and, more importantly, that was recent history for the founders. They weren't over here fighting for their rights as Americans. They were fighting for their rights as English subjects.

Perhaps you were unaware of monarchies, the divine rights of kings, the Glorious Revolution and William of Orange and all of that. Well, run (don't walk) to the nearest library and pick up some history books.

Last time I checked this was the history section.

 

[Disir]

Did you read it, nitwit? No? Of course you didn't.

You said religion and I seldom if ever do religion, so. . .

I don't give a shit.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

....And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

Ya ignorant jackass.

Ok, you assumed I hadn't read it when I had.

So, what is your point with the cut and paste?

That you're an ignorant jackass.

If you consider me to be ignorant because I choose to keep religious discussions out of other issues? So be it. I am comfortable with that.

I'll consider the source.

I'm an atheist. No fucks given for religion. I consider you to be ignorant because you attempt to divorce that right from the time period.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You said religion and I seldom if ever do religion, so. . .

I don't give a shit.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

....And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

Ya ignorant jackass.

Ok, you assumed I hadn't read it when I had.

So, what is your point with the cut and paste?

That you're an ignorant jackass.

Your off, way off, topic fuck chop.

start your own religion thread or get on topic

No, I'm not fucknut. What you nitwits cannot do is divorce that right from where it came from and why it came into existence. That's your history and, more importantly, that was recent history for the founders. They weren't over here fighting for their rights as Americans. They were fighting for their rights as English subjects.

Perhaps you were unaware of monarchies, the divine rights of kings, the Glorious Revolution and William of Orange and all of that. Well, run (don't walk) to the nearest library and pick up some history books.

Last time I checked this was the history section.

Get off the crack.

 

[Disir]

I don't give a shit.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

....By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

....And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

Ya ignorant jackass.

Ok, you assumed I hadn't read it when I had.

So, what is your point with the cut and paste?

That you're an ignorant jackass.

Your off, way off, topic fuck chop.

start your own religion thread or get on topic

No, I'm not fucknut. What you nitwits cannot do is divorce that right from where it came from and why it came into existence. That's your history and, more importantly, that was recent history for the founders. They weren't over here fighting for their rights as Americans. They were fighting for their rights as English subjects.

Perhaps you were unaware of monarchies, the divine rights of kings, the Glorious Revolution and William of Orange and all of that. Well, run (don't walk) to the nearest library and pick up some history books.

Last time I checked this was the history section.

Get off the crack.

Grow up.

 

[whitehall]

Which came first? There were no rights prior to the establishment of Constitutional law. The United States invented government by the people and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

Which came first? There were no rights prior to the establishment of Constitutional law. The United States invented government by the people and the Bill of Rights.

What gave the people the right to form a government and write the constitution?

 

[Disir]

John Locke Second Treatise of Government. Chapter IX
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm#CHAPTER_IX

It's why the Declaration of Independence is laid out the way it is.