SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs
Busy Swingers Forum
Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
Create A Free Account|
|
TOPIC: Connecticut School Shootings
|
|
|
Start
131 to 140 of 730
End
|
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Now try to stop being a parrot and simply identify the section of the U.S. Code containing the provisions of the 1792 Act.
If you can't, just say so. There is no reason to cling to misinformation. Only an ignoramus does that. |
||
Amherst Canada |
Username hidden
(1700 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
I could not find the Dick Act online and would be happy to take a quick look.
On the other hand, I have read the U.S. Code and see in Title 10 where certain provisions of the Dick Act has been codified. I could not find anywhere that the 1792 Act is still codified. Surely you know that the 1792 Act required certain male citizens to own firearms and ammunition. Surely you know that this provision is no longer the law. That means it was what FJ? Replaced, removed, repealed, eliminated, stricken. Rednecks are too stubborn to recognize the obvious. |
||
Amherst Canada |
Username hidden
(1700 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Now try to stop being a parrot and simply identify the section of the U.S. Code containing the provisions of the 1792 Act.
If you can't, just say so. There is no reason to cling to misinformation. Only an ignoramus does that. |
||
Amherst Canada |
Username hidden
(1700 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Dufus have you bothered to read the Dick Act instead of going to Wiki.
Liberals could not find their own ass if it was not attached. |
||
Sanford NC |
Username hidden
(18796 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Actually if you bother to read the Dick Act you would find it reaffirms the Militia Acts of 1792, and the Militia Act of 1862. The Dick act only created a national guard.
Liberals are ignorant! |
||
Sanford NC |
Username hidden
(18796 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
|||
Amherst Canada |
Username hidden
(1700 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
You are making the claims the Dick Act invalidates the act of 1792, put up or shut up.
|
||
Sanford NC |
Username hidden
(18796 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
FJ, I have not asked you to prove anything.
I have just asked you to provide a citation to the U.S. Code provisions memorializing the 1792 Militia Act. Surely a brilliant legal scholar like you knows that acts of Congress are codified in the U.S. Statutory Code and should be able to quickly identify where the 1792 act remains in effect. Yes, it was amended several times, but according to the sources I have seen, the last of its provisions were superseded by the Dick Act. If those sources are incorrect, why the fuck would I care? Just tell me where in the law to find the Act, as amended or otherwise. |
||
Amherst Canada |
Username hidden
(1700 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
Dufus, if it has not been repealed it is still in effect. In fact it was updated during the civil war to include slaves. I don't need to cite a negative that is not there, that is downright dumb on your part. The act was not negated by the act of 1903, and in fact militias are still very much recognized.
|
||
Sanford NC |
Username hidden
(18796 post)
|
||
User Details are only visible to members.
|
"Please cite where the act of 1792 was repealed. The act of 1903 only established a national guard. You really need to learn to read."
FJ, perhaps I should turn your question around and ask you to cite where in the U.S. Statutory Code any provision of the 1792 Militia Act remains. |
||
Amherst Canada |
Username hidden
(1700 post)
|
||
|
Start
131 to 140 of 730
End
|
TOPIC: Connecticut School Shootings
|