The Truth about Republicans, Democrats, and 2A...?
Minder wrote:
Fun fact: according to the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, 14% of Californian adults own a firearm. This is around 4.2 million people. The number of armed Californians is larger than the number of Iowans, armed or otherwise (3.1 million).
Why would I want a military that is only 14% effective? Let me know when they are armed 100%.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,504
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Fun fact: according to the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, 14% of Californian adults own a firearm. This is around 4.2 million people. The number of armed Californians is larger than the number of Iowans, armed or otherwise (3.1 million).
Why would I want a military that is only 14% effective? Let me know when they are armed 100%.
They're a civilian population, they wouldn't be 14% effective as a military force even if they were all armed.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Fun fact: according to the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, 14% of Californian adults own a firearm. This is around 4.2 million people. The number of armed Californians is larger than the number of Iowans, armed or otherwise (3.1 million).
Why would I want a military that is only 14% effective? Let me know when they are armed 100%.
They're a civilian population, they wouldn't be 14% effective as a military force even if they were all armed.
They would be 14% effective compared to their 100% possible effectiveness as civilians.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,504
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Fun fact: according to the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, 14% of Californian adults own a firearm. This is around 4.2 million people. The number of armed Californians is larger than the number of Iowans, armed or otherwise (3.1 million).
Why would I want a military that is only 14% effective? Let me know when they are armed 100%.
They're a civilian population, they wouldn't be 14% effective as a military force even if they were all armed.
They would be 14% effective compared to their 100% possible effectiveness as civilians.
Even the ones who have no desire to own or train with firearms?
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Fun fact: according to the 2018 California Safety and Well-being Survey, 14% of Californian adults own a firearm. This is around 4.2 million people. The number of armed Californians is larger than the number of Iowans, armed or otherwise (3.1 million).
Why would I want a military that is only 14% effective? Let me know when they are armed 100%.
They're a civilian population, they wouldn't be 14% effective as a military force even if they were all armed.
They would be 14% effective compared to their 100% possible effectiveness as civilians.
Even the ones who have no desire to own or train with firearms?
That attitude was instilled in them by CCP saboteurs, it will take time to overcome.
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
That attitude was instilled in them by CCP saboteurs, it will take time to overcome.
Do you have evidence of this?
Of course not, its not like the CCP is going to come forward and admit it.
So how do you know there are CCP saboteurs seeding California if you don't have evidence?
Minder wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
That attitude was instilled in them by CCP saboteurs, it will take time to overcome.
Do you have evidence of this?
Of course not, its not like the CCP is going to come forward and admit it.
So how do you know there are CCP saboteurs seeding California if you don't have evidence?
Well it seems highly sus, to say the least. What are the odds that both California and Australia have the same commie type weapon restrictions? And that they are both strategic coastal areas susceptible to Chinese occupation?
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Well it seems highly sus, to say the least.
Are you claiming that your "reasoning" is sufficient proof of your claim?Lecia_Wynter wrote:
What are the odds that both California and Australia have the same commie type weapon restrictions? And that they are both strategic coastal areas susceptible to Chinese occupation?
What are the odds that you are totally wrong?You offer no valid empirical evidence to support your claim.
Any claim made without evidence is easily dismissed without evidence.
Dismissed.
_________________
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,504
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
That attitude was instilled in them by CCP saboteurs, it will take time to overcome.
Do you have evidence of this?
Of course not, its not like the CCP is going to come forward and admit it.
Having evidence wouldn't require an admission, that's only one form of evidence.
Do you have anything except trust me bro?
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
Minder wrote:
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
That attitude was instilled in them by CCP saboteurs, it will take time to overcome.
Do you have evidence of this?
Of course not, its not like the CCP is going to come forward and admit it.
So how do you know there are CCP saboteurs seeding California if you don't have evidence?
Well it seems highly sus, to say the least. What are the odds that both California and Australia have the same commie type weapon restrictions? And that they are both strategic coastal areas susceptible to Chinese occupation?
So you don't have any evidence. You just have a hunch. California and Australia are by no means the only coastal polities to have strict firearms regulations. The same could also be said for the UK, New Jersey, and Mexico.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,504
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
"The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is a corporation. Go to the UNITED STATES CODE (note the capitalization, indicating the corporation, not the Republic) Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C). It is stated unequivocally that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.
Lincoln made first executive order as Caesar of the USA and made himself President Dictator and president of the Corporation ending the republic. We have been living under martial law ever since. FDR even passed law that all US Citizens are the enemy of the USA. The US is bankrupt and has been since 1933, The Receivers of the US Bankruptcy is the INT Bankers via the World Bank, UN, and IMF All US offices, officers and Departments are working under a "defacto" status only under the emergency war powers. This new form of gmt is known as a democracy(Instead of Republic) being and established communist/socialist order under the "The New Governor of America" - Congressional Record March 17th, 1993, Vol 33, Page H-1303. It is established fact that the US Fed Government has been disolved under the Emergency Banking Act March 9, 1933 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719 Declared by FDR Being Bankrupt and insolvent H.J.R. 192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933- Joint Resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause - Dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the US and the official capacities of all US Gov Offices Officers and Departments and is further evidence the the US Fed Gov only exist today in Name only. US being in Martial Law since 1933 and as far back as civil war Senate Report 93-549 (1973)"
I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this is true. But it all adds up. They tried to regulate guns in 1934.
Lincoln made first executive order as Caesar of the USA and made himself President Dictator and president of the Corporation ending the republic. We have been living under martial law ever since. FDR even passed law that all US Citizens are the enemy of the USA. The US is bankrupt and has been since 1933, The Receivers of the US Bankruptcy is the INT Bankers via the World Bank, UN, and IMF All US offices, officers and Departments are working under a "defacto" status only under the emergency war powers. This new form of gmt is known as a democracy(Instead of Republic) being and established communist/socialist order under the "The New Governor of America" - Congressional Record March 17th, 1993, Vol 33, Page H-1303. It is established fact that the US Fed Government has been disolved under the Emergency Banking Act March 9, 1933 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719 Declared by FDR Being Bankrupt and insolvent H.J.R. 192, 73rd. Congress in session June 5, 1933- Joint Resolution to suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause - Dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the US and the official capacities of all US Gov Offices Officers and Departments and is further evidence the the US Fed Gov only exist today in Name only. US being in Martial Law since 1933 and as far back as civil war Senate Report 93-549 (1973)"
I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this is true. But it all adds up. They tried to regulate guns in 1934.
Quote:
Debunking the U.S. Code Title 28 Myth
The first bit of evidence Presented from U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part VI › Chapter 176 › Subchapter A › § 3002 28 U.S. Code § 3002 is:
28 USC § 3002 – Definitions
As used in this chapter:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
This is used to justify the idea that “United States” means a Federal corporation. The problem is that this isn’t what (15) says (and even if it was, it says “As used in this chapter.”)
To paraphrase in common language the provision says: “United States” includes any federal corporation, agency, department, or instrument of the United States.
In other words, when the document says “United States” it means all corporations owned by the United States, not that the “United States” is a corporation.
Another way to phrase it would be:
[In this document when we say “United States”] “United States” means a Federal corporation of the United States, an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, or an instrumentality of the United States. I.e. when we say “United States” in this document we are also referencing all federal corporations, agencies, departments, etc.
NOTE: The definition in question here is simply a definition from a sub-section of the U.S. code that is discussing federal debt collection procedures. Here is one example of a sentence from Chapter 176 “The United States may, in a proceeding in conjunction with the complaint or at any time after the filing of a civil action on a claim for a debt, make application under oath to a court to issue any prejudgment remedy..” See how “terms” are used here and how each “term” of importance is clearly defined in for chapter (in this case Chapter 176). This act of providing definitions make it so they can, for example, say “United States” and don’t have to say “any federal corporation, agency, department, or instrument of the United State” every time they want to use the term. You can click the links below to see where the definitions lay in the hierarchy of the U.S. Code, and hopefully this will help you understand how they do and don’t relate to the full Code and more broadly the Constitution (a law that over-rides the entire U.S. Code). As you go through the pages you’ll see many common words get defined, “claim,” “debt,” “court,” etc, and in all cases the definitions apply to the chapter on federal debt collection and that nothing in that chapter is discussing the formation of some proxy nation (or whatever).
The first bit of evidence Presented from U.S. Code › Title 28 › Part VI › Chapter 176 › Subchapter A › § 3002 28 U.S. Code § 3002 is:
28 USC § 3002 – Definitions
As used in this chapter:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
This is used to justify the idea that “United States” means a Federal corporation. The problem is that this isn’t what (15) says (and even if it was, it says “As used in this chapter.”)
To paraphrase in common language the provision says: “United States” includes any federal corporation, agency, department, or instrument of the United States.
In other words, when the document says “United States” it means all corporations owned by the United States, not that the “United States” is a corporation.
Another way to phrase it would be:
[In this document when we say “United States”] “United States” means a Federal corporation of the United States, an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, or an instrumentality of the United States. I.e. when we say “United States” in this document we are also referencing all federal corporations, agencies, departments, etc.
NOTE: The definition in question here is simply a definition from a sub-section of the U.S. code that is discussing federal debt collection procedures. Here is one example of a sentence from Chapter 176 “The United States may, in a proceeding in conjunction with the complaint or at any time after the filing of a civil action on a claim for a debt, make application under oath to a court to issue any prejudgment remedy..” See how “terms” are used here and how each “term” of importance is clearly defined in for chapter (in this case Chapter 176). This act of providing definitions make it so they can, for example, say “United States” and don’t have to say “any federal corporation, agency, department, or instrument of the United State” every time they want to use the term. You can click the links below to see where the definitions lay in the hierarchy of the U.S. Code, and hopefully this will help you understand how they do and don’t relate to the full Code and more broadly the Constitution (a law that over-rides the entire U.S. Code). As you go through the pages you’ll see many common words get defined, “claim,” “debt,” “court,” etc, and in all cases the definitions apply to the chapter on federal debt collection and that nothing in that chapter is discussing the formation of some proxy nation (or whatever).
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
Lecia_Wynter wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Where do you get this stuff?
Let me know when you have a counterargument of higher caliber.
It's a fair question though. "What is your source for this information?"
You could have read it on "www.iveliterallyneverreadtheconstutionsoheressomecrapimadeup.com" for all I know.
As mentioned, "trust me" isn't a very compelling argument.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Republicans Aim to Stop Noncitizen Voting in Federal Electio |
14 Apr 2024, 8:35 pm |
Republicans Lash Out At Marjorie Taylor-Greene Over Threat |
22 Mar 2024, 3:21 pm |
Truth social going public and merging |
22 Mar 2024, 2:47 pm |
Truth Social loses $4 billion in value in one week |
06 Apr 2024, 3:35 am |