lulz mad.yeah many did
suck my long rifle barrel resembling , !!!
"assault weapons"
in pansies
It's funny that all the lib s here are pretending they never wanted an assault weapons ban becausewe knew it wouldn't pass anyways
How many here said they wanted an assault weapons ban?It's funny that all the lib s here are pretending they never wanted an assault weapons ban because
And it's not like one has even been voted upon yet.
"assault weapons"
in pansies
He just did it again:
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/te...guns-1C8930018
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ure-deal-guns/On Saturday, Defense Distributed—America’s best-known group of 3D gunsmiths—announced on Facebook that its founder, Cody Wilson, is now a federally licensed gun manufacturer and dealer. The group published a picture of the Type 7 federal firearms license (FFL) to prove it.
“The big thing it allows me to do is that it makes me [a manufacturer] under the law—everything that manufacturers are allowed to do,” he told Ars. “I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making. I can do firearms transactions and transport.”
Wilson and his colleagues have been making prototypes of guns for months now. Most recently, the group demonstrated an AR-15 semi-automatic, which is allowed under American law without a license. The legal difference now is that Wilson can sell and distribute the guns he makes.
Earlier this month Wilson told Ars that he had submitted the application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (a division of the Department of Justice) back in October 2012. The process can take as little as 60 days, but in this case it took around six months.
Currently, Wilson said he will not actually begin manufacturing and selling guns until he receives an “add-on” to his FFL, known as a Class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT), as licensed under federal law (PDF). This would allow him to manufacture and deal a broader range of firearms under the National Firearms Act. The Class 2 SOT would grant Wilson the ability to manufacture, for example, a fully-automatic rifle. Wilson applied for the SOT on Saturday and expects to receive approval within a few weeks.
Here is the actual second amendment, in its full text:
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.
For those who don't understand, it says that people's (individuals like you and me) rights to own and bear (wear, use) arms can't be taken away. The first part, that reads "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely explaining why guns are necessary. For the dense who think militia is military or national guard or something, like me give you the very definition of militia per United States code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of le 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So part 2 of part B specifically says the militia includes able bodied males who are NOT members of organized military units. Thus I qualify, and I assume most members on this board qualify. Historically, militias are used to fight off the peoples OWN oppressive government, much like American militia in the revolutionary war. It wasn't the US army vs British army. It was essentially English militia (who then called themselves American, not enlgish) against the English government/military.
Long story short, the government has promised us the ability to keep guns, so that in case of oppression, we will be able to fight back when needed.
Now the liberal "kind hearted, warm, peace loving" President is trying to start digging away at our second amendment rights and in the meanwhile has authorization to call drone strikes on anybody in the US including its own citizens.big brother
No.
Simply no.
lol thinkprogress fellator.
Here is the actual second amendment, in its full text:
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.
For those who don't understand, it says that people's (individuals like you and me) rights to own and bear (wear, use) arms can't be taken away. The first part, that reads "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely explaining why guns are necessary. For the dense who think militia is military or national guard or something, like me give you the very definition of militia per United States code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of le 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So part 2 of part B specifically says the militia includes able bodied males who are NOT members of organized military units. Thus I qualify, and I assume most members on this board qualify. Historically, militias are used to fight off the peoples OWN oppressive government, much like American militia in the revolutionary war. It wasn't the US army vs British army. It was essentially English militia (who then called themselves American, not enlgish) against the English government/military.
Long story short, the government has promised us the ability to keep guns, so that in case of oppression, we will be able to fight back when needed.
Now the liberal "kind hearted, warm, peace loving" President is trying to start digging away at our second amendment rights and in the meanwhile has authorization to call drone strikes on anybody in the US including its own citizens.
the definiton of militia only mentions males... so to follow your logic this would imply that the same rights don't pertain to females.. since they are not included in the definition of militia..
no, no! 2nd Amendment lovers are strict textual originalists ONLY when they can cherry pick and distort to suit their current needs (profits), just like "Christians" and the Bible.
No it doesn't, and as far as I know, "he" is used when individualized. By your logic, women cannot run for office.
Maybe you should have read this text more closely, since you're both wrong:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of le 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
LOL talk about taking a few words in a sentence out of context...
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
lol passive-aggressive vaguebooking
Apparently you can't read either.... it clearly states that the "militia" is made up of male citizens and female citizens, and comprised of both the National Guard and the unorganized militia (everyone else).... I see nothing there that states females cannot be part of the unorganized militia, tbh....
wow
it's right there in black and white
Besides, any other law or regulation can be superseded if it's not the cons ution, hence my usage of "he." If we go by strict interpretations, I don't believe there is a cons utional amendment that allows a "she" to run for office.
if so, the nineteenth century saw that as no impediment to a woman standing for office:
1866 Elizabeth Cady Stanton was the first woman to run for the U.S. House of Representatives, even though she was not eligible to vote. She ran as an Independent from New York State, receiving 24 votes of 12,000 that were cast. 1872 Victoria Woodhull, a stockbroker, publisher, and protégé of Cornelius Vanderbilt, ran for president of the United States on the Equal Rights Party ticket. 1884 Belva Lockwood, the first woman admitted to practice law before the U.S Supreme Court, ran for president on the Equal Rights Party Ticket; she did so again in 1888. 1887 Susanna Salter was elected mayor of Argonia, Kansas – the first woman mayor in the country. 1894 Three women were elected to the Colorado House of Representatives, the first women elected to any state legislature. They were Clara Cressingham, Carrie C. Holly, and Frances Klock. 1896 Martha Hughes Cannon was elected to the Utah State Senate, becoming the first woman state senator. 1900 Frances Warren of Wyoming became the first woman delegate to a Republican National Convention. In the same year, Elizabeth Cohen of Utah was chosen as an alternate to the Democratic National Convention. When another delegate became ill, Cohen became the first woman delegate to a Democratic National Convention. 1917 Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, entered the U.S. House of Representatives, the first woman ever elected to Congress. She served from 1917 to 1919 and again from 1941 to 1942; a pacifist, she was the only lawmaker to vote against U.S. entry into both world wars.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_fac...ces/Firsts.php
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2013 at 03:02 PM.
It's also noted that at the time, women were denied many rights such as even the right to vote. Since that time, equality has been granted between men and women, which includes gun ownership. The reason it states men specifically is for the same reason that women aren't required to sign up for selective service and cannot get drafted
any revolution ever fought was via militia, hence, citizens in arms uniting
My political stance is typically sides with Libertarians, with my general motto being "maximum rights for all so long as they don't infringe upon others' rights." Gun ownership included. My right to own a gun doesn't infringe upon any of your rights. Hence why my stance on drug legalization is "sure why not" even though I don't use. Same with my "sure why not" view on gay marriage even though it wouldn't affect me
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
