ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

People dont remember history

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:22 pm

Quote
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


Militia Acts of 1792

Just pointing out that the Government forcing you to buy into healthcare is nothing new at all as George Washington was the first president and did just that. So this talk about "fundamentally changing the way our country works" is just uninformed blather.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:35 pm

No one is going to challenge me on this?

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:45 pm

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:22 pm)
Quote
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


Militia Acts of 1792

Just pointing out that the Government forcing you to buy into healthcare is nothing new at all as George Washington was the first president and did just that. So this talk about "fundamentally changing the way our country works" is just uninformed blather.

People already had that stuff back then. Also, just because it happened back then wouldnt make it right now. And the holding of horses is a great practice.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:46 pm

Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:45 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:22 pm)
Quote
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


Militia Acts of 1792

Just pointing out that the Government forcing you to buy into healthcare is nothing new at all as George Washington was the first president and did just that. So this talk about "fundamentally changing the way our country works" is just uninformed blather.

People already had that stuff back then. Also, just because it happened back then wouldnt make it right now. And the holding of horses is a great practice.

The point is, it didn't ruin the country then, i doubt it will do anything now.

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:51 pm

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:46 pm)
Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:45 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:22 pm)
Quote
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


Militia Acts of 1792

Just pointing out that the Government forcing you to buy into healthcare is nothing new at all as George Washington was the first president and did just that. So this talk about "fundamentally changing the way our country works" is just uninformed blather.

People already had that stuff back then. Also, just because it happened back then wouldnt make it right now. And the holding of horses is a great practice.

The point is, it didn't ruin the country then, i doubt it will do anything now.

Telling men to be armed and spending a couple hours in the tavern "drilling" does not equate to anything like what I think you are reffering to. Bankrupting states and arming the IRS is not the same.

AngelOfShadows

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 20500

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:52 pm

It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Precedent does not make something right...or legal for that matter.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:53 pm

Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:51 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:46 pm)
Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:45 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:22 pm)
Quote
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


Militia Acts of 1792

Just pointing out that the Government forcing you to buy into healthcare is nothing new at all as George Washington was the first president and did just that. So this talk about "fundamentally changing the way our country works" is just uninformed blather.

People already had that stuff back then. Also, just because it happened back then wouldnt make it right now. And the holding of horses is a great practice.

The point is, it didn't ruin the country then, i doubt it will do anything now.

Telling men to be armed and spending a couple hours in the tavern "drilling" does not equate to anything like what I think you are reffering to. Bankrupting states and arming the IRS is not the same.

The point is, telling the citizens they must do something is NOTHING new. It's been going on since the country was founded.

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:54 pm

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:53 pm)
Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:51 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:46 pm)
Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:45 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:22 pm)
Quote
Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


Militia Acts of 1792

Just pointing out that the Government forcing you to buy into healthcare is nothing new at all as George Washington was the first president and did just that. So this talk about "fundamentally changing the way our country works" is just uninformed blather.

People already had that stuff back then. Also, just because it happened back then wouldnt make it right now. And the holding of horses is a great practice.

The point is, it didn't ruin the country then, i doubt it will do anything now.

Telling men to be armed and spending a couple hours in the tavern "drilling" does not equate to anything like what I think you are reffering to. Bankrupting states and arming the IRS is not the same.

The point is, telling the citizens they must do something is NOTHING new. It's been going on since the country was founded.

Okay, keep trying to piss on that forest fire against the wind.

norwegian

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3022

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:54 pm

Here's your challenge. ?The act was passed in 1792. ?Judicial review regarding the legality of laws passed by Congress did not yet exist. ?It wasn't until 1803 that Marbury v. Madison established that the Courts could strike down laws as unconstitutional. ?Had they had the power then and it had been challenged it may have been struck down. ?I believe there were other things Congress passed and did before Marbury v Madison, ?that if done later would have been struck down. ?I could look them up but I'm lazy and I just wanted to give you some challenge to your example. ?I could also make a very weak case that the ownership of the guns by the militia were needed for the country's survival. ?But I don't really buy that one myself. ?I'm sticking with Marbury v. Madison.

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 6:55 pm

Quote (norwegian @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:54 pm)
Here's your challenge. ?The act was passed in 1792. ?Judicial review regarding the legality of laws passed by Congress did not yet exist. ?It wasn't until 1803 that Marbury v. Madison established that the Courts could strike down laws as unconstitutional. ?Had they had the power then and it had been challenged it may have been struck down. ?I believe there were other things Congress passed and did before Marbury v Madison, ?that if done later would have been struck down. ?I could look them up but I'm lazy and I just wanted to give you some challenge to your example. ?I could also make a very weak case that the ownership of the guns by the militia were needed for the country's survival. ?But I don't really buy that one myself. ?I sticking with Marbury v. Madison.

Oh yeah, the breakthrough for judicial review had been building for a while.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 7:00 pm

Quote (norwegian @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:54 am)
Here's your challenge. ?The act was passed in 1792. ?Judicial review regarding the legality of laws passed by Congress did not yet exist. ?It wasn't until 1803 that Marbury v. Madison established that the Courts could strike down laws as unconstitutional. ?Had they had the power then and it had been challenged it may have been struck down. ?I believe there were other things Congress passed and did before Marbury v Madison, ?that if done later would have been struck down. ?I could look them up but I'm lazy and I just wanted to give you some challenge to your example. ?I could also make a very weak case that the ownership of the guns by the militia were needed for the country's survival. ?But I don't really buy that one myself. ?I sticking with Marbury v. Madison.

Ok.. i used guns because conservatives are into guns. But lets look at something closer to home. Social Security is insurance that is required by law. EVERYONE MUST PAY INTO IT. it's the law. It is no different.

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 7:00 pm

> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:51 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:46 pm)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:45 am)> id="QUOTE"> border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:22 pm)> id="QUOTE">:logical:
border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">>>Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Mar. 23 2010, 7:57 pm)

When a state is already almost or in a deficit and the Federal government is going to tell them to spend way beyond their budgeting capacity it becomes obvous what will happen. You mean to tell me that you know better than the budget analysts of thirteen plus states?

Cruervo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5659

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 7:01 pm

Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 8:00 pm)
Quote (norwegian @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:54 am)
Here's your challenge. ?The act was passed in 1792. ?Judicial review regarding the legality of laws passed by Congress did not yet exist. ?It wasn't until 1803 that Marbury v. Madison established that the Courts could strike down laws as unconstitutional. ?Had they had the power then and it had been challenged it may have been struck down. ?I believe there were other things Congress passed and did before Marbury v Madison, ?that if done later would have been struck down. ?I could look them up but I'm lazy and I just wanted to give you some challenge to your example. ?I could also make a very weak case that the ownership of the guns by the militia were needed for the country's survival. ?But I don't really buy that one myself. ?I sticking with Marbury v. Madison.

Ok.. i used guns because conservatives are into guns. But lets look at something closer to home. Social Security is insurance that is required by law. EVERYONE MUST PAY INTO IT. it's the law. It is no different.

Conservatives never gave up that fight.

PhantomCrunk007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5088

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 7:03 pm

Quote (Cruervo @ Mar. 24 2010, 4:01 am)
Quote (PhantomCrunk007 @ Mar. 23 2010, 8:00 pm)
Quote (norwegian @ Mar. 24 2010, 3:54 am)
Here's your challenge. ?The act was passed in 1792. ?Judicial review regarding the legality of laws passed by Congress did not yet exist. ?It wasn't until 1803 that Marbury v. Madison established that the Courts could strike down laws as unconstitutional. ?Had they had the power then and it had been challenged it may have been struck down. ?I believe there were other things Congress passed and did before Marbury v Madison, ?that if done later would have been struck down. ?I could look them up but I'm lazy and I just wanted to give you some challenge to your example. ?I could also make a very weak case that the ownership of the guns by the militia were needed for the country's survival. ?But I don't really buy that one myself. ?I sticking with Marbury v. Madison.

Ok.. i used guns because conservatives are into guns. But lets look at something closer to home. Social Security is insurance that is required by law. EVERYONE MUST PAY INTO IT. it's the law. It is no different.

Conservatives never gave up that fight.

So by the logic of some on this board, having introduced Social Security should have ruined our country by now.

nhranger

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9510

Report this Mar. 24 2010, 7:04 pm

How many states now mandate auto insurance?  Where is the outcry?

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9TREK

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum