Letters of Marque were in a separate part of the constitution, mon ami, and the same people that amended the Constitution to add the Bill of Rights passed laws preventing the sale of guns to natives. Besides, you can't "bear" a cannon, so the Second Amendment doesn't apply to arms you can't carry.
The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states, but only the federal government until the 14th Amendment. At the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, for example there were official state churches, despite the First Amendment saying there would be no law establishing a religion. It's called "incorporation" and it happened because the South left, and then lost, and the Republicans wanted a way to keep the Southern states down by giving full rights to blacks.
Never even meant that when the bill of rights was adopted, and, mon ami, it only applied to the federal government.
Apples and oranges.
The law was passed as a tax, they need a new law to use the commerce clause.
Words still mean things.
It would take a new law. The NFA is a tax law but using the commerce clause like the Gun Free School Zone Act, would take a new law.
Mon ami, that was but an excerpt from a larger work, and this is not a debate. Think you that the problem of evil can be solved here, on this forum?
That said, you are in grave spiritual danger; what revelations have you obtained by your use of psychedelics?
Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil. This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
"The word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist."
Hugh Hefner did more to destroy western civilization through cultural vandalism than virtually all of his generation.
He died, old and alone, and rather pathetically, if you know how he went broke.
But apparently he didn't like rape, so there's that.
Hypocrisy is a terrible sin. That's why Jesus was so strident against the Pharisies and Sadducees, both broods of vipers.
I agree that's it is better to admit that we are all fallible humans and sinners, who need God's grace.
Technically, a saint is someone who made it into heaven, from the most holy on earth like the Virgin Mary or Francis of Assisi, to some random guy nobody knows or misses but his family; so there are no "lying saints"
To be fair, jews are typically white collar criminals if they are criminals.
Also, I don't know about where this map is and if it's a jewish neighborhood.
Yep. I agree. They usually have a series of purity tests, and may be on board with most of what they believe, but it takes just one thing that someone else they know, who may have sort of a conventional mindset about a topic, and they get dismissed by the other theorist.
This mindset is nurtured by those who distrust organizing to great effect.
He may be doing these things, but that's not what controlled opposition is.
Controlled opposition is a group or person with followers who is supposed to represent others who are against those in power, but are actually working for those in power, on purpose usually, preventing effective organizing against the power structure. I just don't see that with Hunter.
I'll leave the Mohammed stuff aside for now. I'm not convinced, especially when you're still using their talking points about the trinity being polytheism. Nobody, I mean nobody, attacks Christianity from a unitarian perspective, not even the most militant atheists.
You didn't answer why, of all people on this conspiracy theory board, you're asking deep theological questions of me, and moreover not taking the answers very seriously.
Honestly, though, if you expect a systematic theology from the bible like geometry or Newtonian physics, you won't get it. There is a limit to human reason, which is why certain things are revealed by divine revelation.
To your comment: Jesus as the 2nd person of the Trinity had two natures, a human nature and his nature as God. That's what consubstantial mean, of two essences but the same identity. Outside of time, God always existed, but inside of time he became incarnate of the virgin Mary and became man while still God. This, of course, is the divine revelation I'm referring too.
Takes longer and bigger coalitions, but yea.
Oh? Being charitable, let me ask you then, what opposition does Hunter Biden provide an outlet for?
For Tucker, well, that's fairly obvious, it's soft noticers and conservatives who've realized Fox News is almost as fake as CNN.
But Hunter? He's just a loser.
Nah, you're a follower of the false prophet. Mohammed was tricked by a demon, btw.
I did answer you, in a short sentence. Remember?https://conspiracies.win/p/1ATC02ZMDi/x/c/4ed5c1KSFmM
You didn't answer me about why you are so set on debating. Why are you?
And if you're trying to get some conspiracy about the differences in the creeds, it's caused by greater specificity required to fight various heresies. Nothing particularly conspiratorial about that.
Hunter Biden isn't controlled opposition, but a sex addicted nepotism baby and felon who should be in prison but who got pardoned by his father. Unlike Tucker, who is controlled opposition (who IMO has been given a longer leash) and whose father was CIA.
Puhlease, you're using all the common online Mohammedian apologist talking points. Momma Kalak didn't raise no fools. Atheists just mock and dismiss.
I'll get into a detailed theological debate on the nature of the trinity with you, if you answer why you want me to answer.
That said, in short, the Trinity is three distinct persons that are still one God, consubstantial as it were. From that statement, your question only makes limited sense.
Like a three leaf clover, separate but one, the trinity is not polytheistic. Believe what you will.
I am guessing you are a Mohammedian. Yes?
Why my nom de plume.
What do you consider the Trinity?
"fake" or not, a lot of people die so it's there on the map.
And mon ami, I suppose you never heard the Eagles song to get the reference. Certainly every American has heard it on the radio.
Is it an infringement up on me to not sell my guns to whomever I want, or perhaps, to give them to slaves? They had laws against that too. Same people who passed the bill of rights, had those laws that they passed.
Don't you see how you've already retreated to the inner keep from your mott and bailey argument?
Keep and bear, mon ami. It was meant to protect the arms of the common soldier, such as firearms, swords, knives...because that's what the average militia solder would show up to drill with historically. Words have meanings in historical context especially.
But don't just listen to me, listen to Scalia: https://youtu.be/_j6lRdktscE?t=102
That man authored the Heller decision.