Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- From: Jim Yanik <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Oct 2007 01:00:52 GMT
Aston Barrett <familyman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:379Pi.53$8C7.50@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
The Lone Weasel ate another bag of deep fried lard on a stick and wrote:
[begin snip]
Proof that personal guns were not acceptable for militia duty;
only arms provided by the King and kept by the governor or
local nobility or landed gentry were used, as per the English
Bill of Rights (1689).
What's that got to do with the United States, you retard?
Did you forget that we had to kick the Kings army out, and all "british
laws" along with them were no longer valid the day the war started, 71
years later when the colonies took thier collective independence back?
Damn, Lee. You're dumber then a rock.
Weasel ought to rear Clayton Cramer's book "Armed America";it lists many US
colonies laws concerning militia arms. An excellent piece of research.
My local library has a copy.
Of course,it would conflict with the Weasels' distorted,incorrect
worldview.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- From: The Lone Weasel
- Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- References:
- Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- From: The Lone Weasel
- Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- From: Aston Barrett
- Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- Prev by Date: Re: Our "Rights" Died Today
- Next by Date: SAF ALBANY MACHINE GUN SCANDAL: BLOOMBERG LOOKING IN WRONG PLACE
- Previous by thread: Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- Next by thread: Re: Personal Guns Not Accepted For Militia Duty: Maryland State Archives 1704
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading