Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Disabling the word processor will make the text visible.

Thank you.

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

You have already taken a stand IN FAVOR of that legislation. 


 

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

Thoroughly debunked.

Bruen was given to Thomas because no one else wanted to be associated with writing it.

He's already been humiliated once...

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

You have already taken a stand IN FAVOR of that legislation. 


 

 

You didn't answer the question. 

The only defense against evil, violent people is good people who are more skilled at violence. - Rory Miller




 

Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

You didn't answer the question. 

The only defense against evil, violent people is good people who are more skilled at violence. - Rory Miller

You haven't explained why that is relevant. 

 

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

Thoroughly debunked.

Bruen was given to Thomas because no one else wanted to be associated with writing it.

He's already been humiliated once...

 

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?
 

You replied to the wrong post.  Try again.

But to end your opinion do not forget this:


AI OverviewIn the 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled 6-3 that individuals have a constitutional right to carry handguns in public for self-defense


Back to the quotes:I do not carry a pistol so I can impose my will on someone else. I carry a pistol so someone else cannot impose their will on me! - Lynn Givens, Rangemaster
 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

You haven't explained why that is relevant.

Yo haven't explained why no Federal firearm laws were passed in the 141 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The illusion started in the mid 20th century by the gun control crowd.If you believe in the right to life, then you must believe in the right to have the means to defend that life. - Charley Reese
 

Huey » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

You replied to the wrong post.  Try again.

But to end your opinion do not forget this:

AI OverviewIn the 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled 6-3 that individuals have a constitutional right to carry handguns in public for self-defense

Back to the quotes:I do not carry a pistol so I can impose my will on someone else. I carry a pistol so someone else cannot impose their will on me! - Lynn Givens, Rangemaster

stop presuming.


You can't prosecute the case, so stop sending me the propaganda. 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

stop presuming.

You can't prosecute the case, so stop sending me the propaganda.

AI OverviewIn the 2022 Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled 6-3 that individuals have a constitutional right to carry handguns in public for self-defense

Stapled shut.  Back to the quotes:


It’s often been said, “Violence never solved anything.” The simple truth is that when you are slammed up against the wall and the knife is at your throat, when a circle of teenagers is kicking you as you curl into a ball on the sidewalk, or when the man walks into your office building or school with a pair of guns and starts shooting, only violence, or the reasonable threat of violence, is going to save your life. In the extreme moment, only force can stop force. - Rory Miller

 

Blackvegetable » 23 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

23 minutes ago

Huey » 28 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

28 minutes ago

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

You have already taken a stand IN FAVOR of that legislation.

Are you afraid of this question:

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?
 
That's not an illusion.

Huey » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Yo haven't explained why no Federal firearm laws were passed in the 141 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The illusion started in the mid 20th century by the gun control crowd.If you believe in the right to life, then you must believe in the right to have the means to defend that life. - Charley Reese

Because it is irrelevant to Burger's argument.

As you must instinctively understand given your support for the atf regs.
 

Blackvegetable » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Huey » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

26 minutes ago

Yo haven't explained why no Federal firearm laws were passed in the 141 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The illusion started in the mid 20th century by the gun control crowd.If you believe in the right to life, then you must believe in the right to have the means to defend that life. - Charley Reese

Because it is irrelevant to Burger's argument.

As you must instinctively understand given your support for the atf regs.
 

 

Two things.

1.  It is very relevant to YOUR argument.  It was not a fraud for the first 141 years since ratification.  There was unfettered access to weapons.

2.  The NFA of 1934 did not remove your right to own ANY firearm.  It simply regulated CERTAIN weapons.  Not ban them.

3.  I think it is time you post exactly what you think my stand on the NFA of 1934 is.

These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies. - Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor
 

Blackvegetable » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

Huey » 33 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

33 minutes ago

Yo haven't explained why no Federal firearm laws were passed in the 141 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The illusion started in the mid 20th century by the gun control crowd.If you believe in the right to life, then you must believe in the right to have the means to defend that life. - Charley Reese

Because it is irrelevant to Burger's argument.

As you must instinctively understand given your support for the atf regs.
 

 

This quote describes you on multiple issues:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.  - Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp (she lost both parents in the 1991 Luby’s cafeteria massacre)

 

We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. – Ronald Reagan

Blackvegetable » Today, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:08 am

You weigh 145...

The oppressors wouldn't waste the bullet...they'd just wait for the wind to pick up...

Cinder-block shoes could serve as a practical solution to prevent him from becoming airborne.
 

*Roshambo » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Cinder-block shoes could serve as a practical solution to prevent him from becoming airborne.

Aw, the village idiot has arrived.  You understand BV supports banning the weapons you CLAIM to own.

Blackvegetable » Today, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:27 am

Huey » Today, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:22 am

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

You have already taken a stand IN FAVOR of that legislation. 


 

 

I doubt Askholio will answer the question.

I'm off to the store.  Here is today's carry choice:


Ruger EC9s with ARX Interceptor Polymer defense rounds.


Because the framers, and Bruen say I have a right to carry.
 

Huey » Today, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:01 am

Two things.

1.  It is very relevant to YOUR argument.  It was not a fraud for the first 141 years since ratification.  There was unfettered access to weapons.

2.  The NFA of 1934 did not remove your right to own ANY firearm.  It simply regulated CERTAIN weapons.  Not ban them.

3.  I think it is time you post exactly what you think my stand on the NFA of 1934 is.

These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies. - Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

1. That's a lie....rights were subject to the choice of the jurisdiction you entered...
 

Huey » 39 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

39 minutes ago

I doubt Askholio will answer the question.




 

You have yet another question...

But you don't answer them
 

Huey » Today, 10:46 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:46 am

Blackvegetable » Today, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:27 am

Huey » Today, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:22 am

Nope.  

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

You have already taken a stand IN FAVOR of that legislation.

Are you afraid of this question:

Just curious....was Burger ever able to explain why there was no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?
 
That's not an illusion.

 

 

Blackvegetable » Today, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:00 pm

Huey » Today, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:01 am

Two things.

1.  It is very relevant to YOUR argument.  It was not a fraud for the first 141 years since ratification.  There was unfettered access to weapons.

2.  The NFA of 1934 did not remove your right to own ANY firearm.  It simply regulated CERTAIN weapons.  Not ban them.

3.  I think it is time you post exactly what you think my stand on the NFA of 1934 is.

These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies. - Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

1. That's a lie....rights were subject to the choice of the jurisdiction you entered...
 

 

Your lack of reading ability and comprehension skills is rather shocking.  Note the original question say: 

no FEDERAL Firearm Laws from 1791 2when the Bill of Rights was ratified until the NFA of 1934, 143 years?

I was very careful to word it that way because a non reading ignorant **** like you would bring up state and local restrictions.

Take your L and move on, Bitch.  I won you.