Libtards say that the Militia the 2nd Amend. refers to is the National Guard...

[radiotom]

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?

[mag360]

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

[gandog56]

In no uncertain terms the amendment says:

the 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.

[my_old_glock]

If the 2nd amendment only refers to the Militia, then the 1st amendment refers only to Religion, and not the new media.



.

[gandog56]

Dummycrats are trying to repeal the first amendment, too.

[sqlbullet]

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.

[mag360]

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.

[radiotom]

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.

[Pablo]

Liberals don't re-write history. Communists do. Don't forget that.

[gandog56]

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?

[sqlbullet]

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.

[thequintessentialman]

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'...

[mag360]

It applies to them (nat guard) just like the rest of the citizens of the uS.

[Rich10]

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.

[sqlbullet]

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.