Sign in to follow this  
BravoBravo

"Shall not be infringed"

Recommended Posts

Pretty clear and well chosen words...….

 

2ndad.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Pretty clear and well chosen words...….

 

2ndad.jpg

You are an idiot.  The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a standing military and was designed to allow states to have an armed militia in order to defend themselves if the Federal Government went out of control.  The concept is that if that were to happen, a state citizen would take his single shot musket and join other members of the state militia to fight.  

I know that American History is a requirement to graduate HS so I can only assume you never finished.  Your interpretation is the NRA's version of the 2-A.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of "well regulated" do you not grasp? 

And part of the reason that we have a standing army is that the militias pretty much disgraced themselves 

during the War of 1812. - looting the homes of people they were supposed to be defending and such. 

(Plattsburgh, NY and elsewhere) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:
1 hour ago, BravoBravo said:

2ndad.jpg

You are an idiot.  The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a standing military and was designed to allow states to have an armed militia in order to defend themselves if the Federal Government went out of control.  The concept is that if that were to happen, a state citizen would take his single shot musket and join other members of the state militia to fight.  

I know that American History is a requirement to graduate HS so I can only assume you never finished.  Your interpretation is the NRA's version of the 2-A.  

You apparently don't realize that this (bolded italicized part) is a fiction of the early 1970s NRA fearmongering. The US Constitution does not empower the states to take up arms against the Federal gov't. The militia was a concept of long standing for defense of communities; if anything the FF intended the militia to be used against foreign powers trying to poach some colonial territory, or Indians.

The idea that citizens could and should arm themselves against the dadgum gubbermint arose about the same time as the idea of citizen sovereignty, and is just as stupid.

I've told several of the gun nuts the same thing, and given them examples in history. The best known is the Whiskey Rebellion which the FF themselves stamped out..... a poor way to show the legality of taking up arms against an oppressive US gov't

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's use the full wording...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1939, before money had corrupted most of our government officials, SCOTUS adopted a Collective Rights approach* to the 2nd Amendment.  In their decision they said ownership of a gun should have  "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ."  

*A collective rights approach to the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

This ruling stood until 2008 when a very divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of the powerful gun lobby.  Money talks.  Sanity walks.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You apparently don't realize that this (bolded italicized part) is a fiction of the early 1970s NRA fearmongering. The US Constitution does not empower the states to take up arms against the Federal gov't. The militia was a concept of long standing for defense of communities; if anything the FF intended the militia to be used against foreign powers trying to poach some colonial territory, or Indians.

The idea that citizens could and should arm themselves against the dadgum gubbermint arose about the same time as the idea of citizen sovereignty, and is just as stupid.

I've told several of the gun nuts the same thing, and given them examples in history. The best known is the Whiskey Rebellion which the FF themselves stamped out..... a poor way to show the legality of taking up arms against an oppressive US gov't

- DSK

Is it not possible to understand what a document intends regarding defense and access to arms when said document was written by a group of colonies trying to become a nation, sitting on the edge of an unknown wilderness and an unexplored continent and having just fought a war with one of the major powers of the world?  

They were on the edge of the world in their minds, they had liberal hopes and dream but they also knew that at least three nations had the power to usurp their efforts - England, France and Spain - and knew that there were well organized native nations just over the Appalachians.  They knew that they had to arrange for their defense and they had absolutely no money.  Ergo: They wrote the 2nd Amendment giving rights to well-organized militias to stand ready to defend the new nation and its citizens.  

The 2008 partisan interpretation by the SCOTUS is wrong on so many levels, and the ultimate disaster for our partially civilized nation is to have our uncivilized *resident have the power to put in place laws and policies based on that terrible interpretation.  That way lies submission to the chaos that we are experiencing now almost weekly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the 1850's California militias, called out be the governor of the state, committed numerous 

acts of genocide against indigenous people in Humboldt county, Yosemite Valley and elsewhere. 

White privilege in action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Let's use the full wording...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1939, before money had corrupted most of our government officials, SCOTUS adopted a Collective Rights approach* to the 2nd Amendment.  In their decision they said ownership of a gun should have  "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ."  

*A collective rights approach to the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

This ruling stood until 2008 when a very divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of the powerful gun lobby.  Money talks.  Sanity walks.

 

I find it odd how the first part of that statement is missing from the display in the lobby of NRA Headquarters.

It's almost like they want to pretend those words do not even exist.

lobby.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I find it odd how the first part of that statement is missing from the display in the lobby of NRA Headquarters.

It's almost like they want to pretend those words do not even exist.

Not sure how long that display has been up but I am sure the NRA wasn't always a lobbying group.  I remember growing up, and even years into adult years, the NRA being all about gun education and safety.  They wanted to educate gun owners about the dangers.  They held gun training programs because their prime concern was for the safety of everyone. 

That is the NRA I came to know.  That is why I respected them for so many years.  Now they are just whores working to brainwash the masses while they bribe politicians, all in the name of profit.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jules said:

Not sure how long that display has been up but I am sure the NRA wasn't always a lobbying group.  I remember growing up, and even years into adult years, the NRA being all about gun education and safety.  They wanted to educate gun owners about the dangers.  They held gun training programs because their prime concern was for the safety of everyone. 

That is the NRA I came to know.  That is why I respected them for so many years.  Now they are just whores working to brainwash the masses while they bribe politicians, all in the name of profit.

 

That is pretty much what my buddy tells me.  He is an avid hunter, has a business leading outdoor adventures on the MD Eastern Shore (including hunting trips), and a long-time NRA member.  He is disillusioned with the direction they've taken.  Not sure if he has dropped his membership, but he has stopped providing additional financial support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Pretty clear and well chosen words...….

 

2ndad.jpg

And another one hits the ignore list....... it’s been a busy week for that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Pretty clear and well chosen words...….

 

2ndad.jpg

True.

What well-regulated militia do you report to again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Troglodytarum said:

91AK6B8AI2L._SX425_.jpg

“Take “.... LoL Like those ATF’s rolling off the roof in Waco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Troglodytarum said:

 

90691662_ThomasJefferson02.jpg.813baca8d4e6b1ec4b277e251806e3fb.jpg

The funny thing, most Trumpalos don't know who that funny-looking guy is. And if they know most of what he did, and wrote, they'd certainly hate-hate-HATE his ass.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

That is pretty much what my buddy tells me.  He is an avid hunter, has a business leading outdoor adventures on the MD Eastern Shore (including hunting trips), and a long-time NRA member.  He is disillusioned with the direction they've taken.  Not sure if he has dropped his membership, but he has stopped providing additional financial support.

A lot of the guys I worked with in the trades are, or were at the time, NRA members.  They always talked about safety and personal responsibility when it came to owning a gun.  They took gun ownership very seriously.  Some were instructors for the NRA.   When a young, dumb, full of cum apprentice would start talking about buying a gun, the older guys would grab him by the ear and give him a good dress down.  I know many times that young kid became a responsible member of the NRA and the world was a better place because of it.  

As the NRA became more of a lobbying group, I heard a lot of pissed off members talk about leaving.  They were pissed about making it too easy to buy a gun.  I know one instructor who left and formed a local group dedicated to safety, training and personal responsibility.  He told me, "THAT'S what the NRA should stand for.  Not this lobbying bullshit!"

The Army taught me how to shoot but they also drilled into my head the enormous responsibility you have once there's a gun in your hand.  I've never forgotten that. To me, that's job #1 when owning a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Pretty clear and well chosen words...….

 

2ndad.jpg

Shall not be infringed. I agree. Yet it is. Just goes to show that rights aren't real and are just a construct.

Holding on to words on a piece of paper while your countrymen get killed seems silly. But good on you and your elk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Shall not be infringed. I agree. Yet it is. Just goes to show that rights aren't real and are just a construct.

Holding on to words on a piece of paper while your countrymen get killed seems silly. But good on you and your elk!

No rules just right.... your post was the most convoluted contrivance I’ve read in a long time in PA .. silly liberals 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troglodytarum said:

91AK6B8AI2L._SX425_.jpg

This is fake. Where do you get this garbage from? Didn't your parents teach you to think for yourself and do your own research?

 

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/beauty-second-amendmentspurious-quotation

Sources consulted: (searching for the phrase "second amendment")

  1. American Founding Era Collection
  2. Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series
  3. Works of Thomas Jefferson (Ford)
  4. Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Lipscomb & Bergh)
  5. Quotable Jefferson (Kaminski)

Earliest known appearance in print:            2007

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, pointing out the bullshit posted by Trogs will have no effect on him.  He will just find another bullshit meme to copy-and-paste.

Somehow, I think this gives him some sort of thrill.  Maybe he gets a tingle up his leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Sadly, pointing out the bullshit posted by Trogs will have no effect on him.  He will just find another bullshit meme to copy-and-paste.

Somehow, I think this gives him some sort of thrill.  Maybe he gets a tingle up his leg.

This ^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. 

I kinda felt stupid after catching up on other threads, and seeing it'd been posted already.

Then my wife let me know it's an old, old quote to begin with...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jules said:

Let's use the full wording...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1939, before money had corrupted most of our government officials, SCOTUS adopted a Collective Rights approach* to the 2nd Amendment.

No, they heard a case about a guy who was a criminal and was not in any militia. But was part of "the people."

That tells me they thought the second amendment applied to him, or they would not have heard his case.

Noted constitutional law professor (and gun control advocate) Lawrence Tribe abandoned your interpretation and revised his textbook before the Supreme Court heard the case of noted non-militia member Dick Heller. In which even the dissenters said that the collective rights argument was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

True.

What well-regulated militia do you report to again?

I showed up to our local one with my assault weapon and everyone laughed and pointed out it was really just a squirrel shooter and told me to go get a gun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repastinate Tom said:

I showed up to our local one with my assault weapon and everyone laughed and pointed out it was really just a squirrel shooter and told me to go get a gun.

So your local militia emasculates anyone who doesn't have a real assault weapon?  What fun!

BTW, would this be your group? http://www.flmilitia.org/home.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 About infringe. 

Historically, this word's origin in gun rights is traceable. It happens in a setting which questions the authority over the militia (King vs. Parliament).

Our application of the word within the Second was the same in the USA, a question of authority over the militia (Federal or State...and we chose BOTH).

 

  • England had fallen into twenty years of anarchy, and the hopeless Parliament turned to monarchy to salvage the mess.
  • They begged Charles I to assume the throne, and suspended their militia authority to him, in unequivocal language.
  • Issues developed over Charles the First's standing army, and to some degree, the claims were propaganda
  • Charles was beheaded, and his son James assumed the throne
  • James had been raised a Catholic in Scotland, and he began appointing Catholic militia groups, which clashed with the Protestant status quo
  • Parliament discussed fighting, and would have easily won the fight. A transcript of the discussion was kept.
  • Instead of violence, they appointed themselves in charge of the militia, using vague language, then required a loyalty oath to Parliament from all militia captains.
  • They put this in writing. It was touchy ground, and new territory.
  • Though their personal gun rights were alienable, these militia gunz were not to be infringed upon.
  • Problem solved. No violence.
  • Voila: The Glorious Revolution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jules said:

So your local militia emasculates anyone who doesn't have a real assault weapon?  What fun!

BTW, would this be your group? http://www.flmilitia.org/home.html

 

We need details, Mr. Jules. Tom will not identify his group.

Tom will not specify if such a theoretical and rhetorical group would have a captain.

Tom will certainly not specify if the captain is approved by the governor, and reporting to accountable state authority.

Most important, Tom is unclear if lone wolf actors carry the authority of this flatulent militia.

 

Tom's militia is puffery. Dangerous, insidious, corrosive, puffery, with traction in certain quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jules said:

 A lot of the guys I worked with in the trades are, or were at the time, NRA members.  They always talked about safety and personal responsibility when it came to owning a gun.  They took gun ownership very seriously.  Some were instructors for the NRA.   When a young, dumb, full of cum apprentice would start talking about buying a gun, the older guys would grab him by the ear and give him a good dress down.  I know many times that young kid became a responsible member of the NRA and the world was a better place because of it.  

As the NRA became more of a lobbying group, I heard a lot of pissed off members talk about leaving.  They were pissed about making it too easy to buy a gun.  I know one instructor who left and formed a local group dedicated to safety, training and personal responsibility.  He told me, "THAT'S what the NRA should stand for.  Not this lobbying bullshit!"

The Army taught me how to shoot but they also drilled into my head the enormous responsibility you have once there's a gun in your hand.  I've never forgotten that. To me, that's job #1 when owning a gun.

I'm pleased to hear so many positives, though from the past. Seriously.  I've never seen an NRA type make a move which I appreciated.

Yo, I once approached these PA guys with an open mind. What has become interesting to me is that they reveal themselves as thugs, on non-gun subjects.

:D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, frenchie said:

Thanks. 

I kinda felt stupid after catching up on other threads, and seeing it'd been posted already.

Then my wife let me know it's an old, old quote to begin with...

 

But it's a good one, well worth repeating!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

We need details, Mr. Jules. Tom will not identify his group.

Tom will not specify if such a theoretical and rhetorical group would have a captain.

Tom will certainly not specify if the captain is approved by the governor, and reporting to accountable state authority.

Most important, Tom is unclear if lone wolf actors carry the authority of this flatulent militia.

Tom's militia is puffery. Dangerous, insidious, corrosive, puffery, with traction in certain quarters.

Though we live in the same small town, I have never met Tom nor do I have any idea to which militia he claims to belong.  A Google search for local militias turned up the aforementioned Florida Militia.  It has chapters throughout Florida, though based on what I saw on their website, it looks like they refer to them as companies and are named Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta.  They also said they work with local and state police but I remember somewhere law enforcement officials stating they do not work with citizen groups.

I also read if you join, you need to wear their uniform at meetings.  They have a video that explains all that and where you can go to buy the necessary decorations.  Looks like fun!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 12:04 PM, Cal20sailor said:

You are an idiot.  The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a standing military and was designed to allow states to have an armed militia in order to defend themselves if the Federal Government went out of control.  

.....we shouldn't now be able to defend ourselves if the federal govt goes out of control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, warbird said:

.....we shouldn't now be able to defend ourselves if the federal govt goes out of control?

You and your band of redneck neighbors against a single Apache helicopter...... How's that gonna work out for ya...... Einstein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warbird belongs to the brown pants militia for obvious reasons. The gun nutters are riding in a surley with the infringe on top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

You and your band of redneck neighbors against a single Apache helicopter...... How's that gonna work out for ya...... Einstein?

I'd pay to see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one thing to have a point two two rifle for shooting targets, or squirrels, a  shot gun for shooting skeet, or ducks, or qual. A 30-06 rifle for getting your freezer full of venison, and even, in some instances a side arm for personal protection, if you have a job that requires you to carry large sums of money, or valuables at any time of day, or night. But there is no excuse for regular citizens to have AK 47s, SKS rifles with fixed bayonetts, or AR 15s.... These are not hunting tools, or target practice guns. They are made for one reason. Kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. There is no reason a citizen should need more than 6-7 rounds in their pistol. None. Period.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, warbird said:

.....we shouldn't now be able to defend ourselves if the federal govt goes out of control?

The most powerful military in the world pretty much negated the 2nd Amendment, for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jules said:

The most powerful military in the world pretty much negated the 2nd Amendment, for obvious reasons.

You cannot negate "endowed by our creator". Rights are NOT given by the government or the people....

Side note.... "Shoot 'em Sunday" at Bro's farm. Do I bring the .357 Lever or the  "near genius design" antique  .32 Savage auto pistol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

You cannot negate "endowed by our creator". Rights are NOT given by the government or the people....

Side note.... "Shoot 'em Sunday" at Bro's farm. Do I bring the .357 Lever or the  "near genius design" antique  .32 Savage auto pistol?

You may have been endowed by your creator, but you have been neutered by your nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, warbird said:

.....we shouldn't now be able to defend ourselves if the federal govt goes out of control?

If...

We still had a vote that matters until little don ran into financial trouble with western banks...

I'd say the federal government is out of control when little don attacks the basic institutions of society to protect his butt.

Tell me about your pea shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jules said:

The most powerful military in the world pretty much negated the 2nd Amendment, for obvious reasons.

The military is not going to universally follow orders contrary to the constitution....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

The military is not going to universally follow orders contrary to the constitution....

A military intervention is not the desired result in a constitutional republic.  Perhaps our institutions can stand if good people stand up for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

If...

We still had a vote that matters until little don ran into financial trouble with western banks...

I'd say the federal government is out of control when little don attacks the basic institutions of society to protect his butt.

Tell me about your pea shooter.

Which  pea shooter? Anything smaller than an M60 with tracers  e very  5th is a pea shooter.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:

Which  pea shooter? Anything smaller than an M60 with tracers  e very  5th is a pea shooter.

And you believe a citizen rebellion will save the country, I mean just if.  

You should read more and shoot less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

And you believe a citizen rebellion will save the country, I mean just if.  

You should read more and shoot less.

No....there should never be a need for a citizen rebellion.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

No....there should never be a need for a citizen rebellion.... 

So this 2nd Amendment stuff about a militia and your concern over the over-reaching federal government?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, warbird said:

You cannot negate "endowed by our creator". Rights are NOT given by the government or the people....

Side note.... "Shoot 'em Sunday" at Bro's farm. Do I bring the .357 Lever or the  "near genius design" antique  .32 Savage auto pistol?

 “Endowed by the creator” was the Declaration of Independence a few years earlier, signed by a predecessor government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the arguing about what the fuck the 2nd means is a waste of time. 

The proper thing to do is to Amend the Constitution using absolutely clear wording 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, warbird said:

Which  pea shooter? Anything smaller than an M60 with tracers  e very  5th is a pea shooter.

Exactly the reason the weapons being discussed are suitable for rapid murder of large numbers of people, but inadequate for any militia post WW I.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lark said:

Exactly the reason the weapons being discussed are suitable for rapid murder of large numbers of people, but inadequate for any militia post WW I.  

You have a problem with logic????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, warbird said:

You cannot negate "endowed by our creator". Rights are NOT given by the government or the people....

Are you willing to share what you're smoking cuz that's gotta be a wild trip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jules said:

Are you willing to share what you're smoking cuz that's gotta be a wild trip!

"We hold these truths to be self evident......endowed by thier creatorr with certain inalianable rights"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warbird said:

"We hold these truths to be self evident......endowed by thier creator"

Does that mean you're not sharing that joint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jules said:

Does that mean you're not sharing that joint?

He's already sharing his brain with several alien parasites, you don't want to touch that reefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jules said:

Does that mean you're not sharing that joint?

 

1 minute ago, Jules said:

Does that mean you're not sharing that joint?

You need less MSM and more US Constitution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

You need less MSM and more US Constitution...

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

I particularly like article 1 , section 8 & part 14.  Being part of a militia, it looks like, requires some responsibility to the state, not like the wild self indulgence some seek these days, it would seem, but hey! Give us convenience or give us death!  Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jules said:

Though we live in the same small town, I have never met Tom nor do I have any idea to which militia he claims to belong.

Didn't think the sarcasm font was needed.

 

9 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

It's one thing to have a point two two rifle for shooting targets, or squirrels, a  shot gun for shooting skeet, or ducks, or qual. A 30-06 rifle for getting your freezer full of venison, and even, in some instances a side arm for personal protection, if you have a job that requires you to carry large sums of money, or valuables at any time of day, or night. But there is no excuse for regular citizens to have AK 47s, SKS rifles with fixed bayonetts, or AR 15s.... These are not hunting tools, or target practice guns.

I was just poking a bit of fun at the fact that DiFi and the Presidential Contenders don't see the difference that left8 does and treat our squirrel guns the same as any other "assault" weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:
23 hours ago, Jules said:

Though we live in the same small town, I have never met Tom nor do I have any idea to which militia he claims to belong.

Didn't think the sarcasm font was needed.

Tell us more. You went to your militia meeging, down in FL, withy your Marlin Model 60. Jules was a no show.

 

What, where, when, why, and how?

Did you drive the unregistered pickup truck?

Have any pics?

Black people are the people. Are they allowed in your militia meetup? If so, how many attended that day?

Do they do race-baiting at these meetings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, warbird said:

You need less MSM and more US Constitution...

If the US Constitution actually meant something to you, you'd be screaming to get Trump thrown out of office.

12 hours ago, warbird said:

The military is not going to universally follow orders contrary to the constitution....

Take a look back on history.  The military follows orders.  The President is the supreme commander of the military.  Do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Didn't think the sarcasm font was needed.

"Sarcasm font"? 

The statement I made is factual and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 

  • FACT: To the best of my knowledge we have never met. 
  • FACT: I have no idea to which militia you claim to belong.  Had I omitted the word "claim", my statement would have implied I know you belong to a militia group, which I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jules said:
3 hours ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Didn't think the sarcasm font was needed.

"Sarcasm font"? 

The statement I made is factual and accurate to the best of my knowledge. 

  • FACT: To the best of my knowledge we have never met. 
  • FACT: I have no idea to which militia you claim to belong.  Had I omitted the word "claim", my statement would have implied I know you belong to a militia group, which I don't.

Yes, it looks like this and is intended to alert the clueless of a sarcastic post.

I have never been to any militia meeting. No interest. As I tried to explain, it was just a joke about what TeamD wants to ban when they talk about weapons that are "like an M-16." Squirrel rifles and plinking pistols are among the answers. But I'm the unreasonable one because I read beyond press releases and quote the actual proposed legislation and talk about how it would apply in our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's do a look back on what's being infringed. 

In the case of Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court 5-4 decision, SCOTUS, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms.  In doing so the Court made a clear distinction between U.S. citizens, not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, and a well-regulated militia, specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.

That same majority carved out Miller as an exception to their proclamation that American citizens may possess firearms.  The majority claimed that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose.  In that carve out they made another distinction – firearms that have no law-abiding purpose can be excluded from the 2nd Amendment rights as laid out in their new ruling.

That Court also found that regulations of similar weaponry which cannot be used for law-abiding purposes can be excluded from 2nd Amendment rights without violation of those rights. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

To summarize:

  • ·         Firearms and similar weaponry that law-abiding citizens cannot use for any law-abiding purpose are excluded from the rights the Court laid out in their ruling. 

o   CONCLUSION: If a sawed-off shotgun, the sole purpose of which is to do maximum damage to its target, cannot be used “for any law-abiding purpose” then every similarly categorized weapon should be removed from being allowed under the 2nd Amendment.

  • ·         Regulations which deny criminals and the mentally ill from possessing firearms are allowed by their ruling and would not violate the 2nd Amendment as the court defined it.

o   CONCLUSION 1: Regulations requiring background checks are necessary to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

o   CONCLUSION 2: Regulations requiring registration of firearms, regulations which require change of ownership to be reported to government agencies, and any other regulations that are intended to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill should be well within the scope of the SCOTUS 2008 ruling. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Repastinate Tom said:

Yes, it looks like this and is intended to alert the clueless of a sarcastic post.

I don't know how you are seeing it, Tom, but on my end the fonts used are the default font, which to me looks like verdana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jules said:

I don't know how you are seeing it, Tom, but on my end the fonts used are the default font, which to me looks like verdana.

I'm seeing purple Comic Sans. Just like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

It's one thing to have a point two two rifle for shooting targets, or squirrels, a  shot gun for shooting skeet, or ducks, or qual. A 30-06 rifle for getting your freezer full of venison, and even, in some instances a side arm for personal protection, if you have a job that requires you to carry large sums of money, or valuables at any time of day, or night. But there is no excuse for regular citizens to have AK 47s, SKS rifles with fixed bayonetts, or AR 15s.... These are not hunting tools, or target practice guns. They are made for one reason. Kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. There is no reason a citizen should need more than 6-7 rounds in their pistol. None. Period.

Unless you get 30-50 feral hogs in your yard in 3-5 minutes when your kids are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, warbird said:

 

You need less MSM and more US Constitution...

"We hold these truths to be self evident......endowed by thier (sic) creator" is from the DECLARATION, dumbass.

 

It's clear you know fuck-all about what's actually in the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warbird IS a dumbass which is a self evadent truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it still work?

dogballs

(edit) Yep.  Heh-heh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

I'm seeing purple Comic Sans. Just like this.

WTF?  On my end it's black verdana, or whatever the default is.  I've changed fonts and colors in a few posts but I don't ever remember using purple.  I need to check into this.

Here's the same text but with black verdana selected:
WTF?  On my end it's black verdana, or whatever the default is.  I've changed fonts and colors in a few posts but I don't ever remember using purple.  I need to check into this.

This is black tahoma, which looks more like what I see on my screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 10:29 AM, Jules said:

Let's use the full wording...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In 1939, before money had corrupted most of our government officials, SCOTUS adopted a Collective Rights approach* to the 2nd Amendment.  In their decision they said ownership of a gun should have  "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ."  

*A collective rights approach to the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

This ruling stood until 2008 when a very divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of the powerful gun lobby.  Money talks.  Sanity walks.

 

Are you saying an unellected, life position 2008 court was bribed? Sure seems like it with "money talks". That's a bold statement...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it'd be totally odd if a potential Supreme Court Justice had 6-figures of household debt - incurred for mysterious reasons - disappear in the course of a year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Are you saying an unellected, life position 2008 court was bribed? Sure seems like it with "money talks". That's a bold statement...  

Well, we don't use the word bribed when speaking of the bias those in power display.  But when the Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 decision, handed down a decision that led to unlimited campaign donations from anonymous donors, then maybe it's time we let go of the belief the Supreme Court justices are above reproach.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jules said:

Well, we don't use the word bribed when speaking of the bias those in power display.  But when the Supreme Court, in yet another 5-4 decision, handed down a decision that led to unlimited campaign donations from anonymous donors, then maybe it's time we let go of the belief the Supreme Court justices are above reproach.

Tin foil hat shit mate... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Tin foil hat shit mate... 

Abe Fortas

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Tin foil hat shit mate... 

History,  bro. We lived it.

Money is speech...and the language, the source of the communication,  remains a secret... while CATO yammers away about the First Amendment.

Wtf. God save us. 

There is no white horse under the SC. There is no white hat on their heads. Not any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 12:04 PM, Cal20sailor said:

You are an idiot.  The 2nd Amendment was written before the US had a standing military and was designed to allow states to have an armed militia in order to defend themselves if the Federal Government went out of control.  The concept is that if that were to happen, a state citizen would take his single shot musket and join other members of the state militia to fight.  

I know that American History is a requirement to graduate HS so I can only assume you never finished.  Your interpretation is the NRA's version of the 2-A.  

Obviously you are incorrect in your interpretation of the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Unless you get 30-50 feral hogs in your yard in 3-5 minutes when your kids are out there.

We had a small pack of coyotes come right to the house in broad day light not twenty feet from us.  They get nutty during their fall mating season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rok Dog said:

Obviously you are incorrect in your interpretation of the 2A.

Cal 20 states it correctly, according to the vetted historians who spoke with one voice within McDonald.

 

But there is a twist, and some depth to add. Beyond Cal 20's summary, the federal government was ALSO given the authority to command state troops, if the state acted out (as had already happened in Shays Rebellion).

So, just depending, the citizens of each state could work the state force against the fed, or join the feds against the state, depending on who was usurping power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rok Dog said:

We had a small pack of coyotes come right to the house in broad day light not twenty feet from us.  They get nutty during their fall mating season.  

Hero time. Did you mow them down with your AW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Cal 20 states it correctly, according to the vetted historians who spoke with one voice within McDonald.

 

But there is a twist, and some depth to add. Beyond Cal 20's summary, the federal government was ALSO given the authority to command state troops, if the state acted out (as had already happened in Shays Rebellion).

So, just depending, the citizens of each state could work the state force against the fed, or join the feds against the state, depending on who was usurping power.

 

Obviously your historians are wrong too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites