The first lie in a large collection of lies.
Posted on 11/29/2015 9:40:42 AM PST by rktman
Actually blunderbusses, cannons, & mortars were had by the general public.
viz
BOSTONIANS BEAR ARMS
``After the Battle of Lexington, British General Thomas Gage occupied Boston, Massachusetts. After negotiating with the town committee, Gage agreed to let the inhabitants of Boston leave town with their families and effects, if they surrendered all arms. While most of the residents of Boston stayed, those who left under the agreement surrendered 1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 273 bayonets, and only 38 blunderbusses``.[14]
14^ Abiel Holmes (1829). “The Annals of America”, Volume II. Hillard and Brown. p. 242
We still have cannons from 1776 in our possession here as well as arms from all the wars.
All who have served as active duty or reservists have had their rifle permanently issued to them in Switzerland. Additionally officers are allowed to maintain their pistols as well. They are allowed to regularly draw ammo from the government at set intervals. It is indeed a lie.
CC
That turns out not to be the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Guess I missed the part that says “..right to keep and bear single shot black powder muskets only....”. Certifiable fookin’ idjit on display.
And to think, back around 1970s Hollywood discovered the US vs MILLER decision, and concluded that handguns were, like sawed off shotguns, NOT PROTECTED, but RIFLES were A-OK and blessed!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
TV show after TV show proclaimed the Miller decision as “Proof” handguns were not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Then around 1984, the MSM went after rifles as a “target of opportunity” they thought they could easily ban.
I’ve heard that if we back out the gang violence and black on black shootings, that America would actually have a lower homicide rate than many of the other countries the liberals hold up as a model.for us.
Sadly, the whole Miller thing is consistently misread by these assclowns.
The first lie in a large collection of lies.
It is not.
Gun ownership is a God given right.
The Constitution only comes in to the extent that this God given right can not be interfered with by government.
This moonbat, Allan, Tweddle, thinks the Second Amendment is about hunting. Wrong.
The Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be necessary in order for the citizenry to fight and overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical government should one come into power.
We are more than half way there.
I suggest Tweddle go twidle his twattle. That’s about all he’s good for. We don’t need more ideas on how to control firearms. Just shut the f*** up and leave us gun owners alone and everything will be peaceable.
Murders perhaps, but RATE? That’s # per 100,000 citizens
The pure and simple reason why horse thieves were hung.
>> Driving a car is a privilege. It is one, for which one must get and maintain a number of things for. Valid insurance, a current drivers license.<<
Sorry, you are completely and erroneously wrong.
I posted this on another thread to a FReeper who is similarly misinformed or just plain ignorant, like you:
It has gone all the way to the Supreme Court several times and every time it has been ruled that “driving†is a right guaranteed under the US Constitution to freely travel wherever you want to. Driving is only a method of travel and free travel, whether on foot, bicycle or car, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Driving a vehicle for pay or hire or commercially is a privilege and can be - and is - regulated by states, and probably unconstitutionally, by the feds. But driving a conveyance of any kind for personal travel is a right, not a privilege. Do some research.
Just because the “drivers license” scam has been perpetuated by all gov’t entities, and people have fallen for it (accepted the scam of it being a “privilege” as you have) doesn’t mean that you are required to have a drivers license to travel in an automobile on public roads, except that by voluntarily applying for and accepting a drivers license contract with the state gov’t, you have subjected yourself to that scam. But it is still a voluntary contract by you and doesn’t change the fact that driving/travel is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Even in a vehicle of any kind (other than commercial).
From Wikipedia (I know):
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”
Additionally:
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.”
>> I don’t care a bit what the SCOTUS says about that, <<
You may not care but that has little import on how the world functions. I don’t care for a lot of things, but so far, I’m not emperor of the world and I don’t get my way. Neither are you or do you.
>> they have had little respect for the plain meaning of that “Supreme Law of the Land.” <<
On that, I can whole heartedly agree with you. However, there are many rulings detailing the constitutional basis for them, including lower court rulings. Then there is this:
ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding”
>> The Federal government does have Constitutional jurisdiction over “postal roads” but try and find me one that they bought and built for that expressed purpose other than perhaps the Interstate Highways, which were instead justified as a means of national defense. <<
Again, from wiki:
“As early as the Articles of Confederation the Congress recognized freedom of movement (Article 4), though the right was thought to be so fundamental during the drafting of the Constitution as not needing explicit enumeration.”
What don’t you understand about “so fundamental... as not needing explicit enumeration”?
While you may not care what the courts have ruled, your opinion matters little. The facts are strongly against you.
“...[t]he nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.â€
Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.”
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.”
“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.”
“...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion...” - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.
Again, do some research. Although your intellect seems stunted by your lack of care about how the real world works. Childishly stamping your feet and claiming that the court rulings don’t matter doesn’t hold much water in adult discussions.
“There are none so blind as one who will not see.”
“May your chains...”
I would bet that there more murders in the Isis controlled counties than here in the U.S.
Certainly a larger percentage.
What about the 100 million plus murders committed by governments against their own citizens that have the same Socialist ideology as this leftist?
Less gun control would mean less shootings. Because good people who are armed shoot back. When thugs know that, they go.looking for a gun free zone.
Allan Tweddle is a LIAR and an anti-gun propagandist (pardon the redundancy).
Contrary to what he has written, we do not allow the sale of “cop-killer” bullets. Armor-piercing ammunition has been illegal to own since 1986. And as we saw at the introduction of the FN Five-seveN autoloading pistol, any projectile that coincidentally proves itself nominally effective at penetrating soft body armor, even if that was not its designed purpose, is surely to quickly be added to the “banned” list.
Tweddle seems to be attempting to misrepresent the facts surrounding BATF’s efforts to construe military M855 5.56 NATO ammunition as “armor-piercing” and ban it. Had he bothered to do his due diligence before writing that pap and both read the law 1986 law (Title 18 US Code 921(a)(17)) and test its applicability to to M855, he would have seen that M855 clearly fails to meet the statute’s definition(s). Then again, maybe he DID read it, but considers the truth subordinate to his hoplophobic crusade.
The pertinent clause from 18 USC 921(a)(17) reads as follows:
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means-
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the
presence of traces of other substances) from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze,
beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket
has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of
the projectile.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Where M855 falls short under clause (B)(i) is that its core is part steel and part lead (actually, mostly lead). (B)(i) is unequivocal that if the core includes any material not listed, the projectile does not qualify. M855’s majority core material is not listed.
M855 fails to meet (B)(ii) on two accounts. First, it was neither designed nor intended for use in a handgun. Yes, you can get an AR-15 in a configuration the BATF recognizes as “a handgun.” For that matter, “enthusiasts” have built handguns chambered in .700 Nitro Express T-Rex, but no one with two surviving brain cells could possibly think that that makes the .700 T-Rex a “handgun cartridge.”
The fact of the matter is, Eugene Stoner created the .223 Remington cartridge expressly for his new wundergun, the AR-15 rifle. When the AR-15 was adopted by the US armed services, the cartridge’s nomenclature was “militarized” to the 5.56 NATO, expressly so it could be used in the (similarly renamed) M-16 rifle. Neither the .223 Remington nor the 5.56 NATO were designed for or intended for use in a handgun.
The second shortcoming of (B)(ii) is that M855’s jacket is far less than 25% of total bullet weight. Strike two (or is that three?).
Not only does M855 fail to make the legal threshold, it also falls short on functionally. Its tip is made from mild steel, Rockwell C-scale hardness 40-45. And the steel tip is rounded, not pointed. Genuine armor-piercing ammunition needs a pointed tip with an RC hardness of greater than 60.
It also is true that when fired from a rifle-length barrel, most M-16 ammunition, like most high-powered hunting rifle projectiles, will zip right through soft body armor. Every piece of military-grade Kevlar body armor bears the warning label stating it DOES NOT provide penetration resistance against rifle rounds UNLESS the so-called “Small Arms Protective Insert” (ceramic trauma plate) is installed.
Smart guns? Don’t get me started. Only stupid people think that smart guns — even in principle — are a good idea.
Our Founders wisely left the population armed, not because they could not afford a standing army, but because they recognized that a standing army represents a powerful threat to liberty.
I’m surprised that it took so many posts before a key lie upon which this writer’s “argument” is based was pointed out.
Allan Tweddle is either an ignorant fool or a knowing Big Liar.
Hey Mr "Twaddle": COME AND MAKE ME REGISTER MY GUNS. I will DIE FIRST. Yes, I mean it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.