Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Dumb cu*ts don't have anything better to do like work or raise kids? Maybe they should try reading the constitution or better yet just STFU because they are women and the only reason anyone pays ANY attention to them is because they have vaginas, if they didn't have that going for them they would be as worthless as Obama.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Dumb cu*ts don't have anything better to do like work or raise kids? Maybe they should try reading the constitution or better yet just STFU because they are women and the only reason anyone pays ANY attention to them is because they have vaginas, if they didn't have that going for them they would be as worthless as Obama.

Apparently the dumb cunts in your pic don't either.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Dumb cu*ts don't have anything better to do like work or raise kids? Maybe they should try reading the constitution or better yet just STFU because they are women and the only reason anyone pays ANY attention to them is because they have vaginas, if they didn't have that going for them they would be as worthless as Obama.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Uninformed and still shouting at the top of their lungs.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Uninformed and still shouting at the top of their lungs.

"Awww, Cappy's right. I DO hide behind gun talk cuz I'm a pussy. I love you, Cappy!"

You may be able to convince this guy, but the real world laughs at you and your side.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Dumb cu*ts don't have anything better to do like work or raise kids? Maybe they should try reading the constitution or better yet just STFU because they are women and the only reason anyone pays ANY attention to them is because they have vaginas, if they didn't have that going for them they would be as worthless as Obama.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In 18th century lingo "well regulated" means proficient in marksmanship.

"militia" then and now refers to private citizens.

A militia proficient in marksmanship, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its clear the founding fathers were talking about private firearm ownership equal to that of the common infantryman of the day.

Like I said 6 posts ago.


I can't wait for the spin on your post BDK, this is going to be epic.

BDKJMU wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:




"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In 18th century lingo "well regulated" means proficient in marksmanship.

"militia" then and now refers to private citizens.

A militia proficient in marksmanship, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its clear the founding fathers were talking about private firearm ownership equal to that of the common infantryman of the day.

Link?

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
In 18th century lingo "well regulated" means proficient in marksmanship.

"militia" then and now refers to private citizens.

A militia proficient in marksmanship, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its clear the founding fathers were talking about private firearm ownership equal to that of the common infantryman of the day.

Link?

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/well-r ... ent-73425/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Link?

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/well-r ... ent-73425/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's what it linked to..

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/militia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you have any better ones?

BDKJMU wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:




"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In 18th century lingo "well regulated" means proficient in marksmanship.

"militia" then and now refers to private citizens.

A militia proficient in marksmanship, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its clear the founding fathers were talking about private firearm ownership equal to that of the common infantryman of the day.

If you're going to go that deep into the meanings of the words, first consider the environment of the colonials having weapons confiscated. Then consider what that word meant in the 18th century.

"Well regulated militia" means one that has received/receives proper discipline and training. Marksmanship is only part of it. So, you guys that go out and shoot, took classes to learn a weapon, safety concerns, etc.. are most certainly well regulated.

An 18th century Militia was a group of able bodied, male citizen-soldiers.The Militia Act of 1792 describes this very clearly,

free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years

Private citizens that are called upon in times of crisis = Milita. With the Dick Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act of 1916, National Guard units were federalized and expanded.

Sorry ladies. If we are going to literally follow this law you can't own a weapon.

Fortunately, the DC vs. Heller decision cleared the air and says having a weapon for home defense is lawful under the 2nd Amendment. However, that same decision says you can't have any weapon you want.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
In 18th century lingo "well regulated" means proficient in marksmanship.

"militia" then and now refers to private citizens.

A militia proficient in marksmanship, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Its clear the founding fathers were talking about private firearm ownership equal to that of the common infantryman of the day.

If you're going to go that deep into the meanings of the words, first consider the environment of the colonials having weapons confiscated. Then consider what that word meant in the 18th century.

"Well regulated militia" means one that has received/receives proper discipline and training. Marksmanship is only part of it. So, you guys that go out and shoot, took classes to learn a weapon, safety concerns, etc.. are most certainly well regulated.

An 18th century Militia was a group of able bodied, male citizen-soldiers.The Militia Act of 1792 describes this very clearly,

free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years

Private citizens that are called upon in times of crisis = Milita. With the 1903 act, National Guard units were created.

Sorry ladies. If we are going to literally follow this law you can't own a weapon.

Fortunately, the DC vs. Heller decision cleared the air and says having a weapon for home defense is lawful under the 2nd Amendment. However, that same decision says you can't have any weapon you want.

Wrong.

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
If you're going to go that deep into the meanings of the words, first consider the environment of the colonials having weapons confiscated. Then consider what that word meant in the 18th century.

"Well regulated militia" means one that has received/receives proper discipline and training. Marksmanship is only part of it. So, you guys that go out and shoot, took classes to learn a weapon, safety concerns, etc.. are most certainly well regulated.

An 18th century Militia was a group of able bodied, male citizen-soldiers.The Militia Act of 1792 describes this very clearly,
Private citizens that are called upon in times of crisis = Milita. With the National Defense Act of 1916 National Guard units were created.

Sorry ladies. If we are going to literally follow this law you can't own a weapon.

Fortunately, the DC vs. Heller decision cleared the air and says having a weapon for home defense is lawful under the 2nd Amendment. However, that same decision says you can't have any weapon you want.

Wrong.

1. No. Not really. The Dick Act of 1903 allowed the creation of National Guard Units. This is a predecessor to the 1916 act that panned the National Guard units.

2. If you think "able bodied men" includes women, then we need to reexamine your understanding of the word "men."

3. I'm still right. Even your own links agree with me.

I thought the Dick Act created babies?

93henfan wrote:I thought the Dick Act created babies?

Well, that too.

Spoiler: show

That's the only way I could remember the Milita Act of 1903.

First of all the government doesn't get to decide who is and who isn't in a militia.

Secondly they don't get to change the 2nd amendment from it's intended purpose which is to keep a government from doing what they are trying to do right now.

I am a militia, I am an unprofessional fighting force that can be called into action by the state, but I also have the right to decline said calling. I am a private non government force not directly supported or sanctioned by my government.

I shall not be infringed.

The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

Source: http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/histor ... Guard.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess BDK should inform the Army they are wrong.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:First of all the government doesn't get to decide who is and who isn't in a militia.

Secondly they don't get to change the 2nd amendment from it's intended purpose which is to keep a government from doing what they are trying to do right now.

I am a militia, I am an unprofessional fighting force that can be called into action by the state, but I also have the right to decline said calling. I am a private non government force not directly supported or sanctioned by my government.

I shall not be infringed.

Amateur.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:First of all the government doesn't get to decide who is and who isn't in a militia.

Secondly they don't get to change the 2nd amendment from it's intended purpose which is to keep a government from doing what they are trying to do right now.

I am a militia, I am an unprofessional fighting force that can be called into action by the state, but I also have the right to decline said calling. I am a private non government force not directly supported or sanctioned by my government.

I shall not be infringed.

The Gov't has been deciding who is and isn't militia since the beginning.

Ibanez wrote:

The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

Source: http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/histor ... Guard.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess BDK should inform the Army they are wrong.

Why do you and others keep trying to act like army's and militias are equal and the same?

They are completely different.