Simple Poll: Which came first?

[Marion Morrison]

WOW

Penelopy is really, really ignorant of history.

someone please buy her a history book for Christmas.

Penelope is a Russian troll. FYI.

that would explain so much.

Duh, it's true. The other one isn't over here. "Destroyer of Illusions"

 

[cnm]

I think you may be thinking of the right of states to maintain armed slave patrols without needing the Federal government to do it for them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I think you may be thinking of the right of states to maintain armed slave patrols without needing the Federal government to do it for them.

Could you have said something dumber and more off topic?

try again, and this time with feeling.

 

[Disir]

The right of individuals to keep and to bear arms to defend themselves and their freedoms?

Or, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

 

[Chuz Life]

The right of individuals to keep and to bear arms to defend themselves and their freedoms?

Or, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

Who asked you anything about religion?

 

[Disir]

The right of individuals to keep and to bear arms to defend themselves and their freedoms?

Or, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

Who asked you anything about religion?

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

 

[Chuz Life]

The right of individuals to keep and to bear arms to defend themselves and their freedoms?

Or, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

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. . .

 

[Disir]

The right of individuals to keep and to bear arms to defend themselves and their freedoms?

Or, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

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.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The question in the OP is just another trivia question for wikipedia. It has no bearing on what citizens rights are today. Except of course for those who either choose to ignore or twist the wording of the Constitution.

Or is this another fantasy thread where the alt-right tries to claim it's own sovereignty and it's own ability to make it's own rights in the country. Like McVeigh, or Lavoy Finicum, or Paddock.

 

[Disir]

 

[westwall]

The question in the OP is just another trivia question for wikipedia. It has no bearing on what citizens rights are today. Except of course for those who either choose to ignore or twist the wording of the Constitution.

Or is this another fantasy thread where the alt-right tries to claim it's own sovereignty and it's own ability to make it's own rights in the country. Like McVeigh, or Lavoy Finicum, or Paddock.

Ohhh? The Rights that we enjoy today are different than the Rights we used to enjoy? Do tell....

 

[Chuz Life]

The right of individuals to keep and to bear arms to defend themselves and their freedoms?

Or, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

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?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

Bullshit.

 

[Disir]

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

English Bill of Rights 1689

If you look at how it is written, it demonstrates why we don't have a 'state religion'.

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.

 

[xband]

Dang, I thought this would be the old which came first, the chicken or egg which is more than that and has to do with the creation of the Universe. If the chicken came first that is God and if the egg came first that is a random quantum mechanical event. I am prepared to get in a philosophical, religious and scientific debate.

 

[Disir]

You'll find none of that here.

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

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.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.