Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You entirely miss the point regardless. You're just too indoctrinated and brain washed.
In other words, you're idiot on your knees getting your brains blown out because you made fun of the people trying to warn you about the government eroding your constitutional rights which included incrementally taking away your second amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Ya, stay blind, moron, everything is wonderful on your planet.
Your childlike point is that Jews could have held off the Nazis if they had guns. History does not support it. All of France had guns. None of the local armed population held off the invading Germans
French Resistance was better than the gas chamber.
"The French Resistance played a significant role in facilitating the Allies' rapid advance through France following the invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944, and the lesser-known invasion of Provence on 15 August, by providing military intelligence on the German defenses known as the Atlantic Wall and on Wehrmacht deployments and orders of battle."
The supreme court in no way has been consistent on the second amendment or the right too keep and bear arms for private citizens.
If it was consistence it would have ruled the NFA of 1934, 1938, and 1969 unconstitutional.
It has been consistent and it seems you don't understand how SCOTUS works.
They didn't keep a list of names, that was sent back to the federal government, if there was such a list it stayed localHe doesn't have a point nor is it valid ever heard of the unorganized militia? It's seperate from the regular militia and is not in connection with the national guard.
When the Militia Act of 1792 was in effect there was a gun registry for enrolled militia members and it was constitutionally legitimate.
My argument is that such a registry is not legitimate when intended to apply to private citizens (AKA "the unorganized militia") because private citizens are not within the sphere of federal militia powers which were only operational upon citizens that were "enrolled and notified" in their state's militia.
None of these powers are operational now, they were overridden by the Dick Act of 1903 and completely extinguished by the National Defense Act of 1916.
first came Gun control, then came gun confiscation, then came extermination.When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed
Go for it
The extermination happened regardless of local gun laws. No connection
They didn't keep a list of names, that was sent back to the federal government, if there was such a list it stayed localWhen the Militia Act of 1792 was in effect there was a gun registry for enrolled militia members and it was constitutionally legitimate.
My argument is that such a registry is not legitimate when intended to apply to private citizens (AKA "the unorganized militia") because private citizens are not within the sphere of federal militia powers which were only operational upon citizens that were "enrolled and notified" in their state's militia.
None of these powers are operational now, they were overridden by the Dick Act of 1903 and completely extinguished by the National Defense Act of 1916.
True, the feds were only interested (then) in the general readiness and operational condition of militia companies.
My point is that names of militia members were recorded and type and caliber of the militia duty arm owned by the citizen was recorded and the authority to do this emanated from the federal Constitution as exercised through the Militia Act of 1792.
Which means that the gun-grabbers could get their cherished gun registry through militia regulatory powers. It would be limited to just the one gun the citizen intended to use to fulfill his duty and would require the enactment of a new militia law which would require all eligible militia members to provide themselves with an appropriate arm (arguably an AR platform weapon).
Not likely to happen.
Blah, blah, blah.... *belch*... blah, blah, blah... once again you deflect away from defending your monumentally ignorant statements.OK... Einstein... so your intellectual summation is that an armed populace has no better chance of defending itself than an unarmed populace.
Your stupidity is monumental... take a bow... shit for brains.
When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed
Go for it
Tell me again how my chances of survival by defending myself are just as good with say, a butter knife, against a man toting a shot gun with doubt ought buck?
I'm just so fascinated how you're going to spin this one... go ahead... I'm listening...
They didn't keep a list of names, that was sent back to the federal government, if there was such a list it stayed localWhen the Militia Act of 1792 was in effect there was a gun registry for enrolled militia members and it was constitutionally legitimate.
My argument is that such a registry is not legitimate when intended to apply to private citizens (AKA "the unorganized militia") because private citizens are not within the sphere of federal militia powers which were only operational upon citizens that were "enrolled and notified" in their state's militia.
None of these powers are operational now, they were overridden by the Dick Act of 1903 and completely extinguished by the National Defense Act of 1916.
True, the feds were only interested (then) in the general readiness and operational condition of militia companies.
My point is that names of militia members were recorded and type and caliber of the militia duty arm owned by the citizen was recorded and the authority to do this emanated from the federal Constitution as exercised through the Militia Act of 1792.
Which means that the gun-grabbers could get their cherished gun registry through militia regulatory powers. It would be limited to just the one gun the citizen intended to use to fulfill his duty and would require the enactment of a new militia law which would require all eligible militia members to provide themselves with an appropriate arm (arguably an AR platform weapon).
Not likely to happen.
What's the matter, commie... can't explain how it is you claim an unarmed man can defend himself as an armed man?I knew you'd weasel yourself right on past that without an answer.Blah, blah, blah.... *belch*... blah, blah, blah... once again you deflect away from defending your monumentally ignorant statements.When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed
Go for it
Tell me again how my chances of survival by defending myself are just as good with say, a butter knife, against a man toting a shot gun with double ought buck?
I'm just so fascinated how you're going to spin this one... go ahead... I'm listening...
It proves you're a filthy propagandist and more than likely a commie.
They didn't keep a list of names, that was sent back to the federal government, if there was such a list it stayed local
True, the feds were only interested (then) in the general readiness and operational condition of militia companies.
My point is that names of militia members were recorded and type and caliber of the militia duty arm owned by the citizen was recorded and the authority to do this emanated from the federal Constitution as exercised through the Militia Act of 1792.
Which means that the gun-grabbers could get their cherished gun registry through militia regulatory powers. It would be limited to just the one gun the citizen intended to use to fulfill his duty and would require the enactment of a new militia law which would require all eligible militia members to provide themselves with an appropriate arm (arguably an AR platform weapon).
Not likely to happen.
You see that's not the point of rightwingers position he thinks any list should go to the federal government.
Blah, blah, blah.... *belch*... blah, blah, blah... once again you deflect away from defending your monumentally ignorant statements.When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed
Go for it
Tell me again how my chances of survival by defending myself are just as good with say, a butter knife, against a man toting a shot gun with doubt ought buck?
I'm just so fascinated how you're going to spin this one... go ahead... I'm listening...
Armed resistance against the Nazis ensured one thing......your demise
Armed resistance was encountered throughout Europe. It was responded to brutally
In all of Europe, you have no examples of armed citizens holding back the Nazi Army
It is all NRA fantasies spun for gun nuts
The supreme court in no way has been consistent on the second amendment or the right too keep and bear arms for private citizens.
If it was consistence it would have ruled the NFA of 1934, 1938, and 1969 unconstitutional.
It has been consistent and it seems you don't understand how SCOTUS works.
Ever read miller vs U.S. 1939? You might want to before you step in to this discussion on the consistency of the supreme court and the right to keep and bear arms.
Evading the question...Blah, blah, blah.... *belch*... blah, blah, blah... once again you deflect away from defending your monumentally ignorant statements.When given a chance, once again you fail to back up your inflammatory picture of Jews being slaughtered and your claim that it wouldn't have happened if they were armed
Go for it
Tell me again how my chances of survival by defending myself are just as good with say, a butter knife, against a man toting a shot gun with doubt ought buck?
I'm just so fascinated how you're going to spin this one... go ahead... I'm listening...
Armed resistance against the Nazis ensured one thing......your demise
Armed resistance was encountered throughout Europe. It was responded to brutally
True, the feds were only interested (then) in the general readiness and operational condition of militia companies.
My point is that names of militia members were recorded and type and caliber of the militia duty arm owned by the citizen was recorded and the authority to do this emanated from the federal Constitution as exercised through the Militia Act of 1792.
Which means that the gun-grabbers could get their cherished gun registry through militia regulatory powers. It would be limited to just the one gun the citizen intended to use to fulfill his duty and would require the enactment of a new militia law which would require all eligible militia members to provide themselves with an appropriate arm (arguably an AR platform weapon).
Not likely to happen.
You see that's not the point of rightwingers position he thinks any list should go to the federal government.
Why?
gun Registration is handled at the state level and has been found perfectly constitutional
It has been consistent and it seems you don't understand how SCOTUS works.
Ever read miller vs U.S. 1939? You might want to before you step in to this discussion on the consistency of the supreme court and the right to keep and bear arms.
the case of millers shotgun was never settled
The SCOTUS has never found gun registration to be unconstitional either
How would this or anything they passed have prevented new town?
Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.
How would this or anything they passed have prevented new town?
Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.
Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.
How would this or anything they passed have prevented new town?
Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.
Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.
Since a nutcase can grab/steal/borrow a registered firearm as easily as a non-registered one, the answer is IT WOULDN'T.
Which is why we need to force purchasers to buy liability insurance for each gun they purchase. At the very least, the victims would be compensated.
Insurance for the unlawful actions of others.
Brilliant.
