parados
 
  2  
Sat 29 Jun, 2013 02:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Gosh David...
Surely you know about
26 USC Chapter 53

It's been in existence since ohh... 1934.
mysteryman
 
  0  
Sat 29 Jun, 2013 04:00 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Fireworks toxify the air and contribute heavily to global warming and rising CO2 levels.


And of course you can provide links to reputable studies that can confirm this, correct?
RexRed
 
  0  
Sat 29 Jun, 2013 04:14 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Fireworks toxify the air and contribute heavily to global warming and rising CO2 levels.


And of course you can provide links to reputable studies that can confirm this, correct?

Fireworks - Cheap Thrills with Toxic Consequences
http://www.backcountryattitude.com/toxic_fireworks.html
RexRed
 
  0  
Sat 29 Jun, 2013 04:44 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Hello, Rex!
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I challenge the authenticity
of your alleged quote.






David


NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
of the National Firearms Act of 1934

Excerpt: "MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.asp

mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 29 Jun, 2013 05:38 pm
@RexRed,
You posted an opinion piece, not a link to a reputable scientific study.

Sorry, but that doesnt work.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 11:50 pm
@RexRed,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Hello, Rex!
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I challenge the authenticity
of your alleged quote.





David

RexRed wrote:

NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
of the National Firearms Act of 1934

Excerpt: "MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons.
I seldom carry one ` [i.e., sometimes he carries one.] . ...
I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns.
I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.asp
Thank u, Rex.
From skimming your link, I see that he has not considered
whether gun control is Constitutional or not.

I 'm glad that Mr. Fredrick was not one of the Founding Fathers
who wrote the Bill of Rights; he 'd have screwn us.

He just expressed his personal opinion about it, as u do.
I wonder whether he got himself elected President of 1934 's NRA,
just to subvert our rights to self defense; maybe.

Fortunately, the USSC has taken a more historically accurate
view and a freedom-loving view, in keeping with the Original Intendment of the Founders.
The American Revolution was a LIBERTARIAN REVOLUTION, which naturally gave rise to the Bill of Rights.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 30 Jun, 2013 11:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Gosh David...
Surely you know about
26 USC Chapter 53

It's been in existence since ohh... 1934.
In other words, pre-June of 2008 (D.C. v. HELLER)
parados
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 06:58 am
@OmSigDAVID,
In other words, a law that has been in place for almost 80 years and has been upheld by the USSC on more than one occasion. I note that Heller did NOT overturn it but you seem to have missed that part of the ruling when you make fantastical claims that aren't based on reality or court rulings.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 09:32 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
In other words, a law that has been in place for almost 80 years and has been upheld by the USSC on more than one occasion. I note that Heller did NOT overturn it but you seem to have missed that part of the ruling when you make fantastical claims that aren't based on reality or court rulings.
That issue was NOT litigated; I think that u know, Mr. Parados.
That is to say that no evidence was taken on that point,
nor was there any argument offered concerning that.
Tell me that u don't know that.

In obiter dicta, the Court mentioned the possibility of Constitutional protection
to possession of automatic rifles (M-16, mentioned by name),
machineguns, but left adjudication thereof for another day.





David
parados
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 09:38 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

That issue was NOT litigated; I think that u know, Mr. Parados.
That is to say that no evidence was taken on that point,
nor was there any argument offered concerning that.
Tell me that u don't know that.



You seem to be the one that is confused about the law not existing when you claim no laws can be passed like the one that has been the law of the land for 80 years. Because they took no evidence and rendered no opinion it means the law still exists and Congress has passed laws that restrict gun ownership contrary to your claim they can't do that.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 02:02 pm
@parados,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That issue was NOT litigated; I think that u know, Mr. Parados.
That is to say that no evidence was taken on that point,
nor was there any argument offered concerning that.
Tell me that u don't know that.


parados wrote:
You seem to be the one that is confused about the law not existing when you claim no laws can be passed like the one that has been the law of the land for 80 years. Because they took no evidence and rendered no opinion it means the law still exists and Congress has passed laws that restrict gun ownership contrary to your claim they can't do that.
I was bringing out the point
that by enacting such laws, thay were raping the Bill of Rights
by un-Constitutional USURPATIONS of power.





David
Baldimo
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 03:52 pm
This was an interesting read. I'm wondering what Rex things about the study ordered by his Savior in Chief.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 05:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I was bringing out the point
that by enacting such laws, thay were raping the Bill of Rights
by un-Constitutional USURPATIONS of power.





David

And as I pointed out... YOU are the only one pounding your pecker on the US Constitution.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 06:51 pm
@parados,
I am pleased by the USSC marching on in the direction
of progressively greater personal freedom of self defense.

It remains for the USSC to unite the right to bear arms
with the right to travel and with equal protection of the laws for any citizen.





David
parados
 
  2  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 08:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Do you enjoy raping the Constitution?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 1 Jul, 2013 10:37 pm
@parados,
No. I never do it.
I am a conservative; orthodox.





David
parados
 
  2  
Tue 2 Jul, 2013 10:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Enacting a gun law (loose or tight) is a crime:
raping the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.


Is that why you called it a crime for Congress to pass laws they are allowed to do under the US Constituion? Because you are a conservative that has no clue about the Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Tue 2 Jul, 2013 11:53 am
@parados,
You are under some illusion that the Constitution is there for the govt to control the people. The Constitution is there to restrict the govt not the people. When you understand that, you might understand the Constitution and what it's purpose is.
parados
 
  2  
Tue 2 Jul, 2013 12:01 pm
@Baldimo,
Where does enacting a gun law become a crime under the Constitution?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Tue 2 Jul, 2013 12:51 pm
@parados,
Did I say they were committing a crime?
 

Related Topics

Racism link with gun ownership and opposition to gun control in white Americans - Discussion by hingehead
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Guns And The Laws That Govern Them
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2026 at 12:28:13
▲ ▼