Guest Mac McWilliams Posted May 31, 2007 at 12:27 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 12:27 AM Any know what this guy left out in his quote? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHIJ6ij7FU...Fmay%2Fvideo%2F
45superman Posted May 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 12:50 AM " . . . of the People . . . " Too bad for him and his allies that the Second doesn't say " . . . the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms . . . "
dorvinion Posted May 31, 2007 at 01:38 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 01:38 AM This is prime for a video response
SmershAgent Posted May 31, 2007 at 01:42 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 01:42 AM This is prime for a video response Who's got a camera? We can write up some Q&A to mirror exaclty what he was being asked and provide the real responses.
dorvinion Posted May 31, 2007 at 01:50 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 01:50 AM I have one C-Rock does as well I believe. I would expect the Supreme Court case referenced in the Brady lies and propaganda film was US v Miller http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...07&page=174
lockman Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:07 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:07 AM I have one C-Rock does as well I believe. I would expect the Supreme Court case referenced in the Brady lies and propaganda film was US v Miller http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...07&page=174 My reading of Miller is that the 2A protects individual possession of military small arms, but the defendant did not prove (was absent from the arguments) his weapon (sawed-off shotgun) was a militia weapon.
45superman Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:09 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:09 AM I would expect the Supreme Court case referenced in the Brady lies and propaganda film was US v MillerI don't think there's anything else it could be.
SmershAgent Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:13 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:13 AM My reading of Miller is that the 2A protects individual possession of military small arms, but the defendant did not prove (was absent from the arguments) his weapon (sawed-off shotgun) was a militia weapon. It's a real shame too. I'd think that the prevalent use of the model 1897 Winchester trench gun in WW1 would be pretty compelling evidence that shotguns (sawed off and otherwise) have military application.
dorvinion Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:17 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:17 AM Providing I'm not too busy, tomorrow I think I can begin compiling some arguments facts to present in video
SmershAgent Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:19 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 02:19 AM Providing I'm not too busy, tomorrow I think I can begin compiling some arguments facts to present in video I can help with that as well. All we need now is someone who doesn't mind wearing a suit and tie for 5 minutes to be our actor. It might even be better to get a female lead for this to illustrate that it's not just a bunch of white men who care about this issue.
Federal Farmer Posted May 31, 2007 at 03:00 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 03:00 AM There is a major flaw with their oft repeated statement that the Parker decision overturns 70 years of legal precedence...what about the 150 years of legal precedence before that? What about the 400+ years of history on this continent?
oneshot Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:59 AM Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:59 AM and a few score more years of English gun rights before that... There is a major flaw with their oft repeated statement that the Parker decision overturns 70 years of legal precedence...what about the 150 years of legal precedence before that? What about the 400+ years of history on this continent?
Ol'Coach Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:13 PM Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:13 PM "...life-saving gun laws..."? :Angry!:
45superman Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:20 PM Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:20 PM "...life-saving gun laws..."? :Angry!: I sometimes talk about "life-saving firepower," just to make 'em twitch .
c-rock Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:25 PM Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:25 PM Providing I'm not too busy, tomorrow I think I can begin compiling some arguments facts to present in video I can help with that as well. All we need now is someone who doesn't mind wearing a suit and tie for 5 minutes to be our actor. It might even be better to get a female lead for this to illustrate that it's not just a bunch of white men who care about this issue. I would suggest having her strip while doing the counterarguement.
Ashdump Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:30 PM Posted May 31, 2007 at 04:30 PM this should have been michael moore-on's "stupid white man" video
papabear47 Posted May 31, 2007 at 05:47 PM Posted May 31, 2007 at 05:47 PM I have one C-Rock does as well I believe. I would expect the Supreme Court case referenced in the Brady lies and propaganda film was US v Miller http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...07&page=174 My reading of Miller is that the 2A protects individual possession of military small arms, but the defendant did not prove (was absent from the arguments) his weapon (sawed-off shotgun) was a militia weapon. I came to the same understanding regarding the Miller case.However we have to understand rhat those who wish to control every aspect of our lives and take from us all that they can and create a socialist paradice for the ruling class must first remove all obstacles to such takeover.It is easy to indoctrinate ignorant and fearfull people,just convince them that you have their best interests and the safety of their "CHILDREN" at heart and they can then propagandize firearms ownership in such a manner that the sheeple will gladly live in servitude with their daily allotments....WE will protect you and you will serve us.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.