Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ctdonath2
Sure, frankly I don't know why I'm being argued with!

The power the federal government had to regulate them beyond any conception we would have for their power to regulate "arms" under the Second Amendment is what struck me.

It doesn't show any concern about infringing the right to bear them.

248 posted on 01/19/2005 8:05:03 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies ]


To: mrsmith
Moron...

An Act to Encourage the Destruction of the Armed Vessels of War of the Enemy.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, during the present war with Great Britain, it shall be lawful for any person or persons to burn, sink, or destroy, any British armed vessel of war, except vessels coming as cartels or flags of truce; and for that purpose to use torpedoes, submarine instruments, or any other destructive machine whatever: and a bounty of one half the value of the armed vessel so burnt, sunk, or destroyed, and also one half the value of her guns, cargo, tackle, and apparel, shall be paid out of the treasury of the United States to such person or persons who shall effect the same, otherwise than by the armed or commissioned vessels of the United States.

APPROVED MARCH 3, 1813

Learn the difference between regulating under Constitutional War Powers and the infringements we've had to put up with the last 100 years. Until that seeps in to that regolithic cranium of yours, I'm done with you...

251 posted on 01/19/2005 8:14:01 AM PST by Dead Corpse (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson