Let's examine this asinine claim for a moment.
So if I join the National Guard, then I joined the Militia that the 2nd Amendment is referring to. At that point, do all of these gun laws no longer apply to me? Is that when "Shall not be infringed" takes effect?
Lol no to them it only applies IF you ate in the national guard and IF you have orders from "the state". They loooove centralized control. No thinking just be a tax slave and pay us
In no uncertain terms the amendment says:
Quotethe right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It does not say the rights of the
MILITIA!
Once again the Libtards miscontrue (And on purpose!) the actual words of the law.
If the 2nd amendment only refers to the Militia, then the 1st amendment refers only to Religion, and not the new media.
.
Dummycrats are trying to repeal the first amendment, too.
Luckily we can now point out to them that the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does convey an incorporated individual right to keep and bear arms.
Even then liberal media outlets like LA times routinely say the court was wrong on the 2nd amendment, they are right, and it only applies to the national guard when you are on guard duty.
Quote from: mag360 on May 31 2015 04:02:36 PM MDT
Even then liberal media outlets like LA times routinely say the court was wrong on the 2nd amendment, they are right, and it only applies to the national guard when you are on guard duty.
Thanks, I got it now. "Shall not be infringed" refers to being on National Guard duties. You just gotta read between the lines a teensy weensy bit to find it.
Liberals don't re-write history. Communists do. Don't forget that.
Quote from: sqlbullet on May 31 2015 10:01:17 AM MDT
Luckily we can now point out to them that the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does convey an incorporated individual right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, but remember, it was a close 5-4 decision. What happens if Queen Hillary gets elected and packs her libtard cronies in the Supreme Court?
Quote from: gandog56 on June 02 2015 07:44:07 AM MDT
Quote from: sqlbullet on May 31 2015 10:01:17 AM MDT
Luckily we can now point out to them that the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment does convey an incorporated individual right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, but remember, it was a close 5-4 decision. What happens if Queen Hillary gets elected and packs her libtard cronies in the Supreme Court?
Easy...We stop bringing cases to the supreme court.
That is why increasingly under Obama you don't see cases they loose in circuit and district courts being appealed. They don't want the supreme court to rule and generate nation impacting case law.
If Alan Gura hadn't felt confident he had the votes on the court he would not have pursued Heller or McDonald. Those cases were carefully crafted and filed at a time when the composition of the court was such that a win was possible. Heller didn't have to sue DC, and McDonald didn't have to sue Illinois. Those lawsuits didn't arise when they did by chance.
And, as we saw when Roe v Wade came up for review in the 90's under a "conservative" court, the supreme court is very reluctant to reverse case law, even when the current court doesn't fully agree. This is even more the case with fundamental interpretations of thinks like the Bill of Rights. The court knows that if they set a precedent of meddling with the rulings of previous courts, they unbalance the basic rule of law in our country. And open the door for future courts to meddle with other fundamental rights...rights of which the liberals are very fond.
So, let them rattle their sabers. Same plan applies to us. Join the NRA. Give all additional contributions to the SAF. Become certified instructors, and CCW/CFP instructors. Introduce non-shooters to the sport.
Correct me if I'm wrong but it does apply to national guard... at least in a T Jefferson sense (and he wrote it.) From what I've read, Thomas Jefferson and many other founding fathers believed that all able bodied men had an obligation to arm themselves and stand ready to defend the country. "We the People" are the Nation's Guard! ... just sayn'...
It applies to them (nat guard) just like the rest of the citizens of the uS.
Quote from: thequintessentialman on June 02 2015 08:20:47 PM MDT
Correct me if I'm wrong but it does apply to national guard... at least in a T Jefferson sense (and he wrote it.) From what I've read, Thomas Jefferson and many other founding fathers believed that all able bodied men had an obligation to arm themselves and stand ready to defend the country. "We the People" are the Nation's Guard! ... just sayn'...
That's not exactly the interpretation that I've learned.
Mine would be, since a standing army, national guard per se, is needed to protect the country (invasion and such), the people need arms in case to protect themselves from those meant to protect them, military and gov. So, the arms aren't necessarilly for the people to protect the country itself, but themselves also, if needed.
Seems like I have read that during pre-revolution colonial times there was an effort to ban the Brown Bess because it lacked the accuracy of a decent hunting arm, but could be quickly (for the time) reloaded. As a result it was considered to be a purely military arm for which "civilians" had no use.
Quote from: sqlbullet on June 03 2015 09:09:10 AM MDT
Seems like I have read that during pre-revolution colonial times there was an effort to ban the Brown Bess because it lacked the accuracy of a decent hunting arm, but could be quickly (for the time) reloaded. As a result it was considered to be a purely military arm for which "civilians" had no use.
That's fine, I guess, for people who don't have a problem being called 'subjects' and for a gov that doesn't want resistance.
Rich;
EXACTLY! This is where it is REALLY headed but the people who vote Democrat can't see that. They think they are making "a better world" - WOW!
And to think, I used to have ocean-front property in Missouri I could have sold to these Nimrods. :o
Quote from: Rich10 on June 03 2015 09:21:56 AM MDT
That's fine, I guess, for people who don't have a problem being called 'subjects' and for a gov that doesn't want resistance.
Take a look at the LEGAL definition of the word "Citizen" and be prepared for shock. The brain washing has been going on for a while now.
http://thelawdictionary.org/citizen/
Greg
Quote from: sqlbullet on June 03 2015 09:09:10 AM MDT
Seems like I have read that during pre-revolution colonial times there was an effort to ban the Brown Bess because it lacked the accuracy of a decent hunting arm, but could be quickly (for the time) reloaded. As a result it was considered to be a purely military arm for which "civilians" had no use.
And who was trying to do that? England?
I can't find the reference online, but no, it wasn't our then rulers in england, but once again those who wanted to protect the children.
It seems in any epic there are those who just don't get that violence is the result of decisions, and not the presence of weapons.
Karl Rove states in the Daily Caller "Time To Repel The 2nd Amendment" www.thedailycaller.com
Folks, these RINOs as I said before are in tandem with the other side as there is no 2 sides. This along with the TPP (ObamaTrade) NAFTA on steroids, it is supported by vast majority of RINOs. They capitulate to the King and will fold on gun rights eventually.
Rove is a clown. The leftist press plays him and some country club RINO types listen to him. He is wrong. I don't think this is something he actually wants, but he is still wrong.
The RINOS aka Establishment Republicans own the Tea Party and Conservatives. Thats the bottom line.
No doubt.
Quote from: Wolfie on June 21 2015 04:45:53 PM MDT
The RINOS aka Establishment Republicans own the Tea Party and Conservatives. Thats the bottom line.
Own? Please explain in detail.
Simple, the Establishments gets the Tea Party and Conservatives to get them back in power. While in power they increase the debt and fund the ACA.
The TP and Conservatives put Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell the same EXACT guys that let Bush run wild back in power.
They own them.
Don't worry they will do well in 2018 after Hillary takes 2016
That doesn't even make any sense.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2015/6/21/95637/9569
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has removed Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) from his post as a subcommittee chairman, according to a Chaffetz spokesperson.
The removal comes after Meadows bucked House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in opposing a vote that would give President Obama expanded powers to "fast track" his trade agenda.
Boehner meted out less serious discipline to several other members, as well.
Meadows represents Western North Carolina. It's basically Heath Shuler's old territory. He's a big Tea Party guy whose greatest legislative contribution so far has been to pass a bill related to Hizbollah. I can pretty much guarantee that Rep. Meadows doesn't know how Hizbollah did in the latest Lebanese elections. Someone told him they were a terrorist organization and he probably pictures them as hiding out in caves in Afghanistan or something. You see, Rep. Meadows is a moron.
He didn't want to give us any federal aid to assist us after Superstorm Sandy hit the Mid-Atlantic. Do you know that hurricanes often land in North Carolina?
He supports a Balanced Budget Amendment, which is the stupidest, most irresponsible idea to be introduced by the leadership of a party in the history of the country.
He wants a balanced budget, mind you, after we repeal the Estate Tax, the capital gains tax, and enact a flat income tax that will eliminate most revenue from that source.
He not only opposes reproductive rights, he opposes churches giving their parishioners information about birth control.
He was also a leader of a rump group of lunatics who demanded that Speaker Boehner default on our debts and destroy our country's credit rating to avoid funding Obamacare.
Well described.
Quote from: sqlbullet on June 03 2015 09:09:10 AM MDT
Seems like I have read that during pre-revolution colonial times there was an effort to ban the Brown Bess because it lacked the accuracy of a decent hunting arm, but could be quickly (for the time) reloaded. As a result it was considered to be a purely military arm for which "civilians" had no use.
Well, as Constitutional Congress delegate from Pennsylvania, Tench Coxe put it.
QuoteWho are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
Then there will be a Carbon Tax. Not being Tin Foil but it appears to me the Agenda is a Global Court as a result of passing TPP. It will comprise of a group of arbitrators/lawyers that will render decisions and usurping nations sovereignty. www.breitbart.com Sen. Sessions
:-\ My dog hate my homework, the check is in the mail................
And many more things that are instantly unbelievable the minute they run out of someone's mouth
www.thehill.com surpreme court decision on guns, 2nd amendment.
The Constitution is like the Bible, people twist the meanings to fit their agenda. The 2nd amendment was to protect the citizens of the United States from tyranny and right now we need protection.
Quote from: bandit3 on June 23 2015 05:19:10 PM MDT
The Constitution is like the Bible, people twist the meanings to fit their agenda. The 2nd amendment was to protect the citizens of the United States from tyranny and right now we always need protection.
Fixed that for ya :P