Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1717354" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>The first regulations on guns was the 1792 militia act itself. Defining clearly, what types of guns and ammo could be kept at home. "People" were not allowed to own whatever they wanted and they were subject to "military" service when directed or called up for duty.</p><p></p><p>Conscientious objectors was not added to the militia act until much later, and if a white man, between 18 and 45 refused service, they would be fined and imprisioned.</p><p></p><p>When the militia act was written, RELIGION was not even CONSIDERED. A persons religious beliefs had no place in the militia.</p><p></p><p>The second amendment was written by the first congress in late 1791 and the subsequent militia act was written in early 1792.</p><p></p><p>There can be no mistaking the second amendment in conjunction with the second amendment.</p><p></p><p>You refusal to believe it or understand it isnt something new. Gun owners want to believe whatever they want to believe, and likewise, they take or extrapolate something right out of the middle of a sentence and try to give it legs.</p><p></p><p>On one hand, overpaid union thug says that the constitution isnt a living breathing document, but on the other hand, he wants to change up the intention of the second amendment and expand its meaning beyond the qualifiers of the militia act.</p><p></p><p>If he wants to live his life according to the constitution without the ability to expand the intentions or build on its foundations, then he better turn in his gun collection and buy himself a musket, some flint, a backpack, some balls and a knife.</p><p></p><p>TOS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1717354, member: 17969"] The first regulations on guns was the 1792 militia act itself. Defining clearly, what types of guns and ammo could be kept at home. "People" were not allowed to own whatever they wanted and they were subject to "military" service when directed or called up for duty. Conscientious objectors was not added to the militia act until much later, and if a white man, between 18 and 45 refused service, they would be fined and imprisioned. When the militia act was written, RELIGION was not even CONSIDERED. A persons religious beliefs had no place in the militia. The second amendment was written by the first congress in late 1791 and the subsequent militia act was written in early 1792. There can be no mistaking the second amendment in conjunction with the second amendment. You refusal to believe it or understand it isnt something new. Gun owners want to believe whatever they want to believe, and likewise, they take or extrapolate something right out of the middle of a sentence and try to give it legs. On one hand, overpaid union thug says that the constitution isnt a living breathing document, but on the other hand, he wants to change up the intention of the second amendment and expand its meaning beyond the qualifiers of the militia act. If he wants to live his life according to the constitution without the ability to expand the intentions or build on its foundations, then he better turn in his gun collection and buy himself a musket, some flint, a backpack, some balls and a knife. TOS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...
Top