Not necessarily relevant, not necessarily true. He knows a crapload more about his agenda. But nothing necessitates knowledge to equate to proper use. In fact, I'd wager he is well aware of the real evident meaning and intention. Hence he wants it changed....
The real scholars have, and every time, those who go by simply a historical basis conclude without a doubt that the intention was personal arms.
Actually, it was largely the powder that was prohibited, due to fire risk. And often stored in a common facility. Which if you do some research you'll learn that the British attempt to seize said facility is in fact what triggered the Revolutionary War.
Second, there were laws against concealment. Because it was often the method of criminals.
Enact this, and as a former serviceman who swore an oath, I am obligated to stop you at all costs.
*** Your argument would a) do nothing to reduce crime or mass killings b) furthermore, since we have no militia, it is a de facto nullification of a primal right (and no, the National Guard is not a militia, sorry, you don't send a militia abroad to foriegn wars) c) with the increasing breaches of American civil liberties, we need our guns now, more than ever...
Seriously, I think we should get a group together. Stalk and beat the crap out of the principal. When the principal tries to press charges, we'll simply have a ton of alibis. If he records, we'll press charges against him for wiretapping and demand at gun point that he delete the files.
What Netflix is paying for, is a bribery fee so that Comcast quit throttling them. The proof?
As soon as the agreement was reached, I could finally stream Netflix in 3D. Oh, and we all know they didn't get their peering equipment in within 3 days....
By the way, that incident was over a $14,000 discrepancy and question of whether it was even correct. But the IRS tacked on so many penalties when they flip flopped years later, that it ballooned to over $200,000.
So imagine if you were audited, and questioned on a $140 charge. At first they think you're wrong. Then review, decide no your interpretation is right. Then a few years, they reconsider and decide your interpretation is wrong. So they want your $140 + interest + late fees and penalties + interest on the late fees and penalties. And suddenly you owe $2,000. Now increase the order of magnitude a couple of times.
Then you understand why the man crashed his plane. His mistake was to not do it after hours so no one was hurt.
Why wait to beat the Congressmen for voting on a bill without fully understanding it. We need to beat the Congressmen now, and then decide later if they understood what they voted on. Nancy Pelosi said so...
And you think we should stop talking about it? It's only cause we were that it stopped. And do not suppose that similar dastardly deeds are not being done.
a) Mr. Bundy has purchased the land, grazing and water rights of the areas in question. b) He's paid the appropriate county, state fees. c) The issue is not that he was unwilling to pay BLM, but that the agency basically told all the ranchers they had to reduce their herds by 90% (why, I think this is really about "water", and reducing water usage so more can be routed to Southern California). d) Mr. Bundy refused to capitulate, lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and basically shut down his business on a stroke of an administrator's pen, for a totally unjustified reason.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because then they cease to be militia and have become regulars.
Oh, btw, why a well regulated militia? so that they were capable of holding their own against regulars. Just an FYI.
Um, who disposes of the people?
You're basically asking "What happens when the people itself needs disposing of?"
(see 1939 historical information)
Actually, that's about right. It would likely lead to the mass genocide of 1 in 10 Americans.
Not necessarily relevant, not necessarily true. He knows a crapload more about his agenda. But nothing necessitates knowledge to equate to proper use. In fact, I'd wager he is well aware of the real evident meaning and intention. Hence he wants it changed....
The real scholars have, and every time, those who go by simply a historical basis conclude without a doubt that the intention was personal arms.
Actually, it was largely the powder that was prohibited, due to fire risk. And often stored in a common facility. Which if you do some research you'll learn that the British attempt to seize said facility is in fact what triggered the Revolutionary War.
Second, there were laws against concealment. Because it was often the method of criminals.
Enact this, and as a former serviceman who swore an oath, I am obligated to stop you at all costs.
***
Your argument would
a) do nothing to reduce crime or mass killings
b) furthermore, since we have no militia, it is a de facto nullification of a primal right (and no, the National Guard is not a militia, sorry, you don't send a militia abroad to foriegn wars)
c) with the increasing breaches of American civil liberties, we need our guns now, more than ever...
Let's do some bullying....
lfornella@southfayette.org
tburroughs@southfayette.org
wnewcomer@southfayette.org
avezzi@southfayette.org
fmorelli@southfayette.org
aczaplicki@southfayette.org
tpetrillo@southfayette.org
pbrinsky@southfayette.org
jiriti@southfayette.org
cgeisler@southfayette.org
Seriously, I think we should get a group together. Stalk and beat the crap out of the principal. When the principal tries to press charges, we'll simply have a ton of alibis. If he records, we'll press charges against him for wiretapping and demand at gun point that he delete the files.
So fuming pissed.
ROTFLMAO
No, you can break up Comcast into three companies. One that charges for TV, one that charges for Internet, and one that owns the cable lines....
How did they justify the tax bill exceeding your income?
It happened basically over night.
It was merely throttling policy.
What Netflix is paying for, is a bribery fee so that Comcast quit throttling them. The proof?
As soon as the agreement was reached, I could finally stream Netflix in 3D. Oh, and we all know they didn't get their peering equipment in within 3 days....
I want some, cause it's clearly as good as BTL chips.
By the way, that incident was over a $14,000 discrepancy and question of whether it was even correct. But the IRS tacked on so many penalties when they flip flopped years later, that it ballooned to over $200,000.
So imagine if you were audited, and questioned on a $140 charge. At first they think you're wrong. Then review, decide no your interpretation is right. Then a few years, they reconsider and decide your interpretation is wrong. So they want your $140 + interest + late fees and penalties + interest on the late fees and penalties. And suddenly you owe $2,000. Now increase the order of magnitude a couple of times.
Then you understand why the man crashed his plane. His mistake was to not do it after hours so no one was hurt.
a) very few banks give interest any more. And even interest on $10 grand is nothing.
b) many banks now charge fees just for having an account.
Thus...
c) overpaying taxes, is often a free savings account.
&
d) since even the IRS doesn't understand their own laws, it is impossible to always know your final payment. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Somebody above stated President Bush vetoed it and Congress overrid the veto.
Seriously?
Why wait to beat the Congressmen for voting on a bill without fully understanding it. We need to beat the Congressmen now, and then decide later if they understood what they voted on. Nancy Pelosi said so...
And you think we should stop talking about it? It's only cause we were that it stopped. And do not suppose that similar dastardly deeds are not being done.
They're minors....
And if you engage in a contract with a minor, it is non-binding. And that should be the case for at least all of these under 18 ones.
If you're still pointing fingers at either the Republicans or the Democrats and not BOTH!!!
You are part of the problem!!!!!
To summarize:
a) Mr. Bundy has purchased the land, grazing and water rights of the areas in question.
b) He's paid the appropriate county, state fees.
c) The issue is not that he was unwilling to pay BLM, but that the agency basically told all the ranchers they had to reduce their herds by 90% (why, I think this is really about "water", and reducing water usage so more can be routed to Southern California).
d) Mr. Bundy refused to capitulate, lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments and basically shut down his business on a stroke of an administrator's pen, for a totally unjustified reason.
But you don't think the government noticed
a) all the people who didn't
b) all the people whose shirts bulged from concealed carry weapons.
c) the fact that they knew they were outgunned
Might makes right...in this case the government was in the unusual position of being on the opposite side.
Google Bundy, you'll find a hundred if not a 1,000 sources on google you lazy net bum.
What's that matter if
a) they take your money first
b) provide no means of recourse
c) judiciary pursuit costs more than the value you're seeking to recoup
Did you not read, an unconstitutional ex post facto law was attached to the last Farm Bill.