# The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?

Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?

The reasons the democrats want to get rid of AR-15 rifles is easy…..they are Kyle Rittenhouse and Mr. and Mrs. McClosky and you can throw in Korean grocery store owners and other business owners who stood outside their businesses with AR-15s and other rifles.

When the democrat party used their brown shirts…..BLM and antifa to loot, burn and kill…in primarily black neighborhoods, always remember that………the only times they were stopped were when Kyle killed two of them, and the McCloskys and others stood up to them, rifles in hand.

That is what drives the democrats and other leftists crazy….errrr…more crazy.

The fact that normal people stopped the democrat party brownshirts, BLM and antifa in their tracks…..even though though they vastly out numbered the innocent Americans they were sent to intimidate…. Scares and pisses off the democrats………

When the democrats send in BLM, and antifa to loot end burn minority businesses before an election, they can’t have those business owners shooting their brown shirts or stopping their brown shirts……..so these rifles have to go…….then they will come after the rest of the guns…..


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

The Leftest can't have the citizens be able to possess effective firearms because then the citizens may overthrow their oppressive Leftest regime.  We see it all over the world.


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   It has been less than a month since the Bruen ruling and already the Democrats are infringing.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that". 
"That causes your heart to go bad"


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...





Smokin' OP said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".



Then why did they give the Right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not just the militia?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Then why did they give the Right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not just the militia?


WTF?
At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.
You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


Stupid confused uneducated Moon Bats like you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not connected to any membership in any organization, militia or otherwise.

Do you have peanut butter in your ears?


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?
> 
> Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?
> 
> ...


I think it is also about 1/6.

The Patriots protesting the election stolen by the Democrats didn't use any firearms but maybe the next time they will.

That scares the hell out the Democrats, who, like all Leftests mostly only attain office though dishonesty and thievery.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.
> You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.


You're a card carrying moron, right?

Militia was limited to males, 16-45.

The Second gave the right to people outside that age and sex range.

BTW, stupid, I'm 72.

I'd never be called up for militia DUTY.

Find a new talking point.

This one failed.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Flash said:


> Stupid confused uneducated Moon Bats like you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not connected to any membership in any organization, militia or otherwise.


Stupid, confused and uneducated Trumptard.
The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
It was their OPINION.
NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.


Flash said:


> Do you have peanut butter in your ears?


You have shit in yours.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Stupid, confused and uneducated Trumptard.
> The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
> It was their OPINION.
> NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.
> ...





Smokin' OP said:


> NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.



and a *subject:*  The Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms.


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Stupid, confused and uneducated Trumptard.
> The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
> It was their OPINION.
> NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.
> ...


You stupid uneducated shithead.  The Supremes are the ones that have the job under the Constitution to determine things like this.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.

In DC they said Dick Heller had the right to have a firearm even though he was not a member of any militia,

In Chicago they said that Otis McDonald had the right to have a pistol even though he was not a member of any militia.

Recently in New York they said the people had the right to carry a firearm  even though they were not members of any militia.

In all these cases the Supreme Court strongly affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

You have your head up your Libtard ass.  You just embarrassed yourself when you post your mindless uneducated dribble.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> You're a card carrying moron, right?


Goes without stating YOU ARE.


Hugo Furst said:


> Militia was limited to males, 16-45.


No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.


Hugo Furst said:


> The Second gave the right to people outside that age and sex range.


NO, it didn't idiot.

Guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers). 

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.”

For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.”

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.



Hugo Furst said:


> BTW, stupid, I'm 72.
> 
> I'd never be called up for militia DUTY.








Hugo Furst said:


> Find a new talking point.
> 
> This one failed.


Yours did.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?
> 
> Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?
> 
> ...


This is a lie.

The ‘ban’ is an attempt to stop mass shootings, regardless of who the shooter might be.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> and a *subject:*  The Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms.


*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Flash said:


> You stupid uneducated shithead.  The Supremes are the ones that have the job under the Constitution to determine things like this.  Go look it up.  I shit you not.


YEAH, ONE job...................and they couldn't get THAT right.


Flash said:


> In DC they said Dick Heller had the right to have a firearm even though he was not a member of any militia,
> 
> In Chicago they said that Otis McDonald had the right to have a pistol even though he was not a member of any militia.
> 
> ...


OH' boy "strongly affirmed"..........................like Trump "strongly affirmed" he won the election.


Flash said:


> You have your head up your Libtard ass.  You just embarrassed yourself when you post your mindless uneducated dribble.


The word is DRIVEL you moron, and you have plenty of it.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Goes without stating YOU ARE.
> 
> No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.
> 
> ...





Smokin' OP said:


> NO, it didn't idiot.





Smokin' OP said:


> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.*





Smokin' OP said:


> 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.

The PEOPLE got the Right, not just the militia.*

There is no need to further prove you're an idiot.

Everyone is well aware of it,


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.


For 30 plus years that's what they claimed, wanna buy a howitzer?
You can, but guess what, IT comes with regulations.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


You don't seem to understand the use of  being clauses of the time period.

The right of the people is the subject of the Second not the militia.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> For 30 plus years that's what they claimed, wanna buy a howitzer?
> You can, but guess what, IT comes with regulations.





Smokin' OP said:


> For 30 plus years that's what they claimed, wanna buy a howitzer?



same can be said about *actual* assault weapons.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.

The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

That declaration is as specific as it gets.  The right to the "People".  That is all of us.  The reason we have this right?  Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 30, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.


They haven't been invalidated by the SCOTUS, yet.  They are invalidated daily in American life.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> *The Right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> The PEOPLE got the Right, not just the militia.*


Thanks to the supreme court, NOT the constitution.

So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?


Hugo Furst said:


> There is no need to further prove you're an idiot.
> 
> Everyone is well aware of it,


Sure you moron post a picture of your box of hand grenades you purchased from amazon.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.


RWNJ's never will.


Darkwind said:


> The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".


YES, it does.
WHY is it IN there, then?
It's a matter of following simple instructions.
Do you skip the first step and go right for step four?



Darkwind said:


> That declaration is as specific as it gets.  The right to the "People".  That is all of us.


IF you skip the first part................sure.


Darkwind said:


> The reason we have this right?


The militia needed people to fight.


Darkwind said:


> Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Thanks to the supreme court, NOT the constitution.
> 
> So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?
> 
> Sure you moron post a picture of your box of hand grenades you purchased from amazon.





Smokin' OP said:


> So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?



dot the i's, cross the t's, pass the. background check, put  your money on the table,

(are you sure you're not a card carrying moron? You sure act the part.)


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You don't seem to understand the use of  being clauses of the time period.


WTF?
So, just abandon the entire constitution............. because of CLAUSES?


Blues Man said:


> The right of the people is the subject of the Second not the militia.


HOLY FUCK.
THAT'S what the supreme court claimed..............while ignoring the rest.


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YEAH, ONE job...................and they couldn't get THAT right.
> 
> OH' boy "strongly affirmed"..........................like Trump "strongly affirmed" he won the election.
> 
> The word is DRIVEL you moron, and you have plenty of it.


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)




----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> same can be said about *actual* assault weapons.


Dangerous weapons?
In the wrong hands.

So, in Trumplandia, would you give a pocketknife to a 4 year old, without proper instruction?
THAT'S what they are doing with dangerous weapons with no experience necessary.
Just because "MY RIGHTS".


----------



## Flash (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Dangerous weapons?
> In the wrong hands.
> 
> So, in Trumplandia, would you give a pocketknife to a 4 year old, without proper instruction?
> ...


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Dangerous weapons?
> In the wrong hands.
> 
> So, in Trumplandia, would you give a pocketknife to a 4 year old, without proper instruction?
> ...


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> RWNJ's never will.
> 
> YES, it does.
> WHY is it IN there, then?
> ...


I would post a link to you explaining it, but it requires an open mind to understand it and a little knowledge about how the English language works.  Somehow, I don't think you'll read it, but here goes anyway:





__





						Loading…
					





					virginiainstitute.org


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Flash said:


> View attachment 676298


OK, your retarded, STILL with a SCOTUS?
THAT'S THEIR OPINION.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Thanks to the supreme court, NOT the constitution.
> 
> So, can you own a RPG, a automatic M-16, grenades?
> 
> Sure you moron post a picture of your box of hand grenades you purchased from amazon.


Yes you can own fully automatic weapons.

Look it up.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> View attachment 676302


YES, YOU ARE, MORON.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Yes you can own fully automatic weapons.
> 
> Look it up.


No shit.
Buuuuuut what are the regulations, fees and tracking possessions and transfers?
Oh' darn.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No shit.
> Buuuuuut what are the regulations, fees and tracking possessions and transfers?
> Oh' darn.



in place to keep morons like you from buying one.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 30, 2022)

From the Primer:



> THE MILITIA PREFACE It should come as no surprise that there are so many obvious problems with reading the operative clause of the Second Amendment to protect any sort of right belonging to state governments. If the Constitution had simply provided that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” nobody could maintain with a straight face that the provision could mean anything other than that individuals have that right. Doubts about the plain and obvious meaning of that clause have been raised only because of the prefatory phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . . ”





> Before looking at these words more closely, we should pause to focus on a few things that the Second Amendment does not say: |
> 
> 1.. It emphatically does not say that it protects the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
> 2. Nor does the Second Amendment say that the people’s right to arms is sufficient to establish a well regulated militia, or that a well regulated militia is sufficient for the security of a free state.
> ...


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> I would post a link to you explaining it, but it requires an open mind to understand it and a little knowledge about how the English language works.  Somehow, I don't think you'll read it, but here goes anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



INTRODUCTION 
The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.

That's as far as I got, more RWNJ horse shit.

Let me repeat for the maybe 1,000 time..............NO ONE WANTS TO disarm ANYONE.
Unless they are too stupid, a criminal or mentally ill to own a weapon and operate it properly.

That would be 97% of Trumptards.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


And when a leftist tyrannical government controls not only the federal government, but also controls the states?  That's where the armed civilian citizens that can create militias come in, to protect the freedoms of their states that the tyrannical government would take away.  THAT.....was the purpose of the Second Amendment.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> in place to keep morons like you from buying one.


That would be you, idiot.
I hit what I aim at, Trumptards need 30 rounds to wound a turtle.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> INTRODUCTION
> The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong.
> 
> That's as far as I got, more RWNJ horse shit.
> ...


^^^  This is why no one has any real debate or discussions on this website.  It is a waste of time and the minds of far too many of the members here, are closed tight.

You are wrong.  Have a nice day.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> That would be you, idiot.
> I hit what I aim at, Trumptards need 30 rounds to wound a turtle.





Smokin' OP said:


> I hit what I aim at,



You've missed the target on this thread with every post you made.

You're such a moron, you think the second is only about militia.


----------



## hunarcy (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Then why did they give the Right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not just the





Hugo Furst said:


> You're a card carrying moron, right?
> 
> Militia was limited to males, 16-45.
> 
> ...


You're arguing with someone on my troll list, so he's not going to be honest or give you a legitimate argument.  He'll keep lying and distracting just to keep your attention.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> You've missed the target on this thread with every post you made.


No, I didn't moron.
" The assault weapons ban"?
Holy fuck you see what I did there?

I read the first words first.

"Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys….."
See THAT?

I didn't ignore the FIRST words, so you want me to ignore them?
There, I did.

"Rittenhouse nor the McClosky's were mass shooters".



Hugo Furst said:


> You're such a moron, you think the second is only about militia.


MOST of it was because MOST of the people within the parameters were available for a draft into the militia.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> ^^^  This is why no one has any real debate or discussions on this website.  It is a waste of time and the minds of far too many of the members here, are closed tight.
> 
> You are wrong.  Have a nice day.


YOU and the author sure do.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, I didn't moron.
> " The assault weapons ban"?
> Holy fuck you see what I did there?
> 
> ...



Most of the people in the US at that time were males between the ages of 16 and 45?

And you claim NOT to be a moron?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> Most of the people in the US at that time were males between the ages of 16 and 45?


Were males?
Really?
WHICH, you clueless idiot, could be called up for a draft, in the fucking militia.


Hugo Furst said:


> And you claim NOT to be a moron?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Were males?
> Really?
> WHICH, you clueless idiot, could be called up for a draft, in the fucking militia.



you're batting 1000, moron.




not one in the target yet


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.*


all that does is confirm its military grade arms the people have a right to keep and bear,,


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> all that does is confirm its military grade arms the people have a right to keep and bear,,


NO, it doesn't.
Unless you were in a militia and the weapon was your own.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NO, it doesn't.
> Unless you were in a militia and the weapon was your own.


thats not what it means,,


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> thats not what it means,,


YES, it does.
If you didn't have a weapon, and were drafted in the militia, a weapon would be provided but you couldn't take it home, it had to be return to the militia.

Darn, just like the National Guard does now.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES, it does.
> If you didn't have a weapon, and were drafted in the militia, a weapon would be provided but you couldn't take it home, it had to be return to the militia.
> 
> Darn, just like the National Guard does now.


and of course you have something to prove that??

a person would be useless if they got drafted if they didnt have a weapon that would be effective in war,,,


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> and of course you have something to prove that??
> 
> a person would be useless if they got drafted if they didnt have a weapon that would be effective in war,,,


No shit, moron.
That's why a weapon was provided..............by the militia.

While town militia usually only had their personal weapons, of local, “cottage” make, and Roger’s Rangers often carried rifles, also of local make, the arms of those soldiers of the new provisional regiments fighting the French were decidedly British. It was established that each soldier of the Virginia Regiment, for example, be issued a “Sea Service or a Commercial Contract Long Land Type musket with flash guard, hammer cap (hammerstall), bayonet and scabbard.” This musket is best known as the Brown Bess.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.
> You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.




You fascists will never give up........the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is direct and straightforward...by you will never stop trying to lie about it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.




No....they are not....as Heller, Miller, Caetano, Macdonald and now Bruen show.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
> 
> That declaration is as specific as it gets.  The right to the "People".  That is all of us.  The reason we have this right?  Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.




They get it....they just need to lie about it so that uninformed Americans give them the power they need to ban and confiscate guns.....and then they can really let their fascist flag fly free....what the Korean store owners, the McCloskys and Kyle Rittenhouse show...as long as we have guns, there is a limit to the violence and death the left can inflict on us....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No shit, moron.
> That's why a weapon was provided..............by the militia.
> 
> While town militia usually only had their personal weapons, of local, “cottage” make, and Roger’s Rangers often carried rifles, also of local make, the arms of those soldiers of the new provisional regiments fighting the French were decidedly British. It was established that each soldier of the Virginia Regiment, for example, be issued a “Sea Service or a Commercial Contract Long Land Type musket with flash guard, hammer cap (hammerstall), bayonet and scabbard.” This musket is best known as the Brown Bess.




How much do the chinese pay people like you these days?    We know they control tik tok, and that they are infiltrating our society at all levels...is this your only assignment, or do you go around and lie about climate change to.......?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You fascists will never give up........the Right of the People to keep and bear arms is direct and straightforward...by you will never stop trying to lie about it.


Oh' darn.
ANOTHER, RWNJ gun nut chimes in.
The FIRST part is direct and straight forward too.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Why did they put THAT FIRST?
OR put that in the amendment............AT ALL, Q NUT?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> How much do the chinese pay people like you these days?    We know they control tik tok, and that they are infiltrating our society at all levels...is this your only assignment, or do you go around and lie about climate change to.......?


The Chinese know more about US history than any Q NUT.
That isn't saying much, a grade school graduate knows more than a Trumptard.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Oh' darn.
> ANOTHER, RWNJ gun nut chimes in.
> The FIRST part is direct and straight forward too.
> “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
> ...




And it doesn't say anything that the militia has a Right to keep and bear arms.........

That you morons keep pushing that just confirms over and over that under no circumstances should we ever give up our guns or let you have total power.......history is full of mass graves created by people who first disarmed their victims....

Read Heller, Scalia explains it so that even a moron, half wit like you can understand.....but, you already understand, you simply need to take our guns away because they keep you from doing everything you want to do to us.......


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The Chinese know more about US history than any Q NUT.
> That isn't saying much, a grade school graduate knows more than a Trumptard.




I just want to know how much you get paid...or are you simply a part of their military or intelligence apparatus?  So you just get the crap pay of a soldier or career spook........


----------



## Abatis (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.



How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?

Not *all *the people, only a, "_free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years_" was obligated *BY LAW* to serve and was enrolled as set out in law, in the militia.

Among those select "people" chosen to serve, please explain to me what aspect of a citizen's legal militia duty was a "right" or how any gun _acquisition _(including the mandated type of gun) and _possession_ undertaken to fulfil a citizen's legal mandate, can be defined or described as a "right"?  And while you are at it, please explain how any gun _use_ during that mandated in LAW militia duty, can be defined or described as a "right"?

If _every_ aspect of a militia member's gun acquisition, possession and use as a enrolled militia member was set out in law and had legal penalties for evasion / avoidance, what exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect under your goofy interpretation?



Smokin' OP said:


> You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.



Wrong, Those selected citizens specified in _*LAW*_ as _obligated_ to serve, were automatically enrolled in the militia, unless specifically exempted from service.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And it doesn't say anything that the militia has a Right to keep and bear arms.........


YES, they do you fucking brain dead, moron.
They're in the militia


2aguy said:


> That you morons keep pushing that just confirms over and over that under no circumstances should we ever give up our guns or let you have total power


MORONS, like you keep thinking that idiot.
A 30-year-old fucking lie but gullible, Q NUTS, like yourself keep repeating it like FOX, THEN,it becomes 'the truth"


2aguy said:


> .......history is full of mass graves created by people who first disarmed their victims....


Yeah, you fucking moron, and lately that is because worthless fucks like you NEED 30 rounds of ammo to wound a turtle, because you haven't been trained on how to shoot.
Like giving the keys to a car to a 10 -year -old and praying, of course, NOTHING bad will happen.
30 rounds, no experience, pull the trigger...........what could go wrong?


2aguy said:


> Read Heller, Scalia explains it so that even a moron, half wit like you can understand


DUH, you're the half-wit.

The case had been brought by a District of Columbia courthouse guard who wanted to buy and maintain a gun at home, despite D.C.'s sweeping handgun ban. Scalia ruled that the Constitution entitled the man, Dick Heller, to own a gun and use it at home for self-protection. For good measure, Scalia not only knocked down the city's handgun ban but also declared that its requirement that guns be kept disassembled or with trigger locks was unconstitutional. No, Scalia ruled, the founders meant for guns to be available for self-defense, and trigger locks would make it too hard to take on an intruder.

Antonin was right.
You should be able to defend yourself, your family and people that are a threat to your safety.

That doesn't mean unreasonable force, just like police.


2aguy said:


> .....but, you already understand, you simply need to take our guns away because they keep you from doing everything you want to do to us.......


Sure, Q NUT.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 30, 2022)

Abatis said:


> How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?


WTF?
It didn't.
American Indians were excluded as well as black slaves.


Abatis said:


> Not *all *the people, only a, "_free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years_" was obligated *BY LAW* to serve and was enrolled as set out in law, in the militia.


See above.


Abatis said:


> Among those select "people" chosen to serve, please explain to me what aspect of a citizen's legal militia duty was a "right" or how any gun _acquisition _(including the mandated type of gun) and _possession_ undertaken to fulfil a citizen's legal mandate, can be defined or described as a "right"?  And while you are at it, please explain how any gun _use_ during that mandated in LAW militia duty, can be defined or described as a "right"?


Another, WTF?
If you were in the militia, the towns within a colony couldn't prevent you from owning a weapon.



Abatis said:


> If _every_ aspect of a militia member's gun acquisition, possession and use as a enrolled militia member was set out in law and had legal penalties for evasion / avoidance, what exactly does the 2nd Amendment protect under your goofy interpretation?


People IN a militia from a colony/city/ town rule.


Abatis said:


> Wrong, Those selected citizens specified in _*LAW*_ as _obligated_ to serve, were automatically enrolled in the militia, unless specifically exempted from service.


WRONG, NO, they weren't.
They had to be found and sworn in by a commander of the state's militia.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES, they do you fucking brain dead, moron.
> They're in the militia
> 
> MORONS, like you keep thinking that idiot.
> ...




We need whatever magazines we want because morons like you keep releasing the most violent criminals over and over again and during election season, you have now decided that turning loose your brown shirts, blm and antifa, to loot, burn and murder in black neighborhoods is a good strategy .....and that if we don't have guns in the suburbs, you can turn them loose there too.....

Right now, you and the democrats have made the cities you control gun free zones...so that your blm and antifa brownshirts can loot, burn and murder without consequences....Kyle Rittenhouse demonstrated what happens to your convicted felon, pedophile brown shirts when they attack armed normal people...

That is why you have ramped up your attacks on semi-automatic guns........if democrat party brown shirts, blm and antifa, can get shot when they attack normal people....then their value as murderous thugs is reduced........


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No shit, moron.
> That's why a weapon was provided..............by the militia.
> 
> While town militia usually only had their personal weapons, of local, “cottage” make, and Roger’s Rangers often carried rifles, also of local make, the arms of those soldiers of the new provisional regiments fighting the French were decidedly British. It was established that each soldier of the Virginia Regiment, for example, be issued a “Sea Service or a Commercial Contract Long Land Type musket with flash guard, hammer cap (hammerstall), bayonet and scabbard.” This musket is best known as the Brown Bess.


you have yet to back up your claim with any proof,,,
while on the otherhand we all know from their writings that the founders meant weapons if war since thats what they would be used for,,


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Flash said:


> The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.   It has been less than a month since the Bruen ruling and already the Democrats are infringing.



How many Republicans and other so-called conservatives on this site have argued that the law is the law and it is constitutional unless or until the Supreme Court declares otherwise.  

There are those on this site who are not, or at least pretend to not to be, leftists or Democrats or gun controllers who have empowered and approved the Congress passing any law they wish, Constitution be damned, knowing it will be years to decades before it ever, if it ever, gets to the Supreme Court.  

Right now, they're just hoping to hold out for Biden or another Democrat, or even another Republican, president to appoint even more Justices that do not care about the Constitution.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.
> You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.


I'm not going to side track this thread by going over it all _again_, but I've already proven, more than once, that the right to keep and bear arms is a separate thing, and was a separate thing in 1789 and in 1791.  What you're referring to is an edit made for clarity that everyone at the time of ratification understood what we call the prefatory clause was a binding on the government to maintain the militia and that the militia is a constitutionally required first defense against invasion and rebellion, not a limit on the right to keep and bear arms. 

So your  claim that we no longer use a militia so the right to keep and bear arms cannot possibly be true; the thing that is wrong in the current government is that they no longer keep up the militia as the primary first-defense for the nation as they are explicitly required by the Constitution to do.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Goes without stating YOU ARE.
> 
> No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.
> 
> ...


Yes, violations of the Constitution began almost immediately after the ratification. So what?  Can you think of any modern violations of the Constitution?  Do you believe we should ignore those because of what a Justice said?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> *The Right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> The PEOPLE got the Right, not just the militia.*
> 
> ...


In another thread, I posted every use of the word "People" in the Constitution and in the Amendments.  In not any single use of the word does the left try to claim that People means the state, or the community, or the government, or anything other than individual persons.

And yet, somehow, the use in the 2nd Amendment says something completely different from every other case in the Constitution as amended.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> It has been explained a hundred thousand times, and still you folks don't get it.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment is an explanatory clause that provides the justification for the Amendment and does NOT alter the meat of the sentence which is, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
> 
> That declaration is as specific as it gets.  The right to the "People".  That is all of us.  The reason we have this right?  Is to fight tyranny, which is what the Militia was used for in our war of independence against the most powerful army on the planet; using the most modern weapons of the time they lived.


It is not an explanatory clause in any way.  It is a requirement that the government maintain a militia and consider and use it as the primary first defense of the security of the state.  It is a compound sentence.  It could even be considered a running-on sentence, where the author communicated two unrelated topics separated by a comma or semi-colon rather than a period.

Five different States included in their statements/documents ratifying the Constitution that it was done so on the agreement that there would be an amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  

New Hampshire's was stated in the simplest of terms: _*Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.*_

The other four that demanded the right had variations on this, with some including even more differing ideas in the same sentence: _*That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.*_

Notice the order of the two statements: The right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause, clearly stating that the militia is a mandatory part of the defense of a free state, as the second clause.  Was the right to keep and bear arms explanatory of, the reason for, the requirement that the militia be composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, and be the natural and safe defense of a free state?  Of course not.  

The biggest mistake modern lawyers, legislators, Courts, and even the Supreme Court Justices, make is to attribute today's grammar rules, standards, practices, and even mistakes, to the writing style of the late 18th century.  Instead, they need to look at other writings with similar constructs, logic, and statements, to understand how things were written at the time.

James Madison and his committee had to look at all of the proposed or demanded amendments and consolidate them.  When states or other authors said the same thing but with different words or formatting or grammar, he had to consolidate that into a common statement.  He consolidated the various statements into the 2nd Amendment, with some parts of the statements also going into the 3rd Amendment and some not making the cut from committee or Congress.  

That, in editing, Madison reversed the order of the two statements is not in any way indicative of an intent to change the meaning or intent of the two statements.  This is proven by the fact that every one of the five states,  plus others, ratified the 4th proposed amendment (which became the 2nd Amendment).  

Had the thing that those five states demanded, even as a stated condition of understanding in their ratification of the Constitution itself, been stripped by what became the 2nd Amendment, they surely would never have ratified that amendment.  That they all five ratified the Amendment proves that, in the minds of all of the State Legislatures voting on the Bill of Rights, these statements:

_*That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.*_​
Meant EXACTLY the same as:

As voted out of Congress:​*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.*​
Which meant EXACTLY the same as:

As Ratified:​*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.*​
The word games between those three, played by the lawyers, the States, the gun controllers especially, the Courts and even the Justices of the Supreme Court are all self-serving by each.  

There were multiple scribes who took what Madison edited, and copied it for Congress.  When Congress passed it, multiple scribes copied from what Congress wrote to make copies for the States.  That's why there are differences in what Congress received from Committee, what they voted on to go to the States, and what the States ratified.  

In fact, considering the complete proposed Bill of Rights as a whole, different States got different versions.  Commas were added or removed; some scribes used semi-colons where a different scribe used a comma.  Some copies used the word "and" in places where other scribes used the ampersand (&) in the same places.  They didn't have computers to guarantee that everything was perfectly alike across the entire process.

But, what the words meant, and that they all meant the same to the Founders, to the entire Congress, to each and every State Legislature, and that a comma here or there didn't change the meaning in any way, and that the order of the two statements does not change the way, is ABSOLUTELY proven by the fact that no one at all in the Congress or the State Legislatures challenged any of these differences at the time.

What many today call the prefatory clause is not a prefatory clause at all.  It is a distinct and separate requirement on the government of the United States.


----------



## Failzero (Jul 30, 2022)

They know as it stands the MIL /NG and LEOs will not do their bidding if 2A/ RTKBA is not severely hamstrung


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 30, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It is not an explanatory clause in any way.  It is a requirement that the government maintain a militia and consider and use it as the primary first defense of the security of the state.  It is a compound sentence.  It could even be considered a running-on sentence, where the author communicated two unrelated topics separated by a comma or semi-colon rather than a period.
> 
> Five different States included in their statements/documents ratifying the Constitution that it was done so on the agreement that there would be an amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> ...


Incorrect.  I posted a link that details and breaks down the language of the Second.  I suggest reading it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No shit.
> Buuuuuut what are the regulations, fees and tracking possessions and transfers?
> Oh' darn.


All of those regulations, fees, tracking possessions and transfers, are unconstitutional.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES, it does.
> If you didn't have a weapon, and were drafted in the militia, a weapon would be provided but you couldn't take it home, it had to be return to the militia.
> 
> Darn, just like the National Guard does now.


That's a complete lie.  The requirement was that you must have a weapon and were, by default, required to provide your own.  In some cases, there were efforts, definitely important historically but not terribly wide spread, to provide arms to those who couldn't afford them or even just to standardize.

But the requirement in all militias was to show up for appointed training or drills with your weapon in hand, whether owned by the State or otherwise.

In Pennsylvania, there was an order by the governor to have all government owned militia weapons turned in for maintenance and the militia members refused, fearing it was an attempt to disarm them - proving that even then the people feared the State would take their arms and that the state provide arms were kept in the hands and homes of the militia members.

I proved you wrong on this point once before and you know it.  You just continue with the lie because you're a Democrat - which means "one who lies".



woodwork201 said:


> https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj
> In the terms of the day, public arms were those provided by, ultimately owned by, the Government. Private arms were those purchased by and owned by individuals.
> 
> The Government did, as they do today, establish armories and caches of arms, powder, and ammunition, but they also provided thousands of public weapons to the States that went directly into the hands of the militia expressly because they had property to protect. You can't protect property with a gun in an armory somewhere.
> ...


----------



## Abatis (Jul 30, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> It didn't.
> American Indians were excluded as well as black slaves.



Stay focused!  I am exploring / asking about _your_ theory that the 2ndA "collective" right is for the militia and the Militia Act is a good explainer of the extent and purpose of the right.

My question, "_How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?_" assumed that you and I were only discussing the particular "people" called out in the Militia Act (which of course would exclude Blacks and Native Americans) who you argue are the "people" who possess and can exercise 2ndA's right to arms.

It is _*you*_ arguing the 2ndA is very discriminatory because it is restricted to only those "people" the Militia Act recognizes as liable to serve in the militia.

I guess we should do the remedial Militia Act coverage here, if you can't maintain continuity of argument . . .

The Militia Act states only the "_free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years_" are in the militia.

Clearly, a member of _*that*_ class are the *only* individuals _in the entire nation_ that the Militia Act operates on, since that determination is demanded by the canon of statutory interpretation of, *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others.

My question was about those "_free able-bodied white male citizen(s)_" who are excluded in the law, exempted from militia duty and the operation of militia law.

I'm asking because your position demands that _these_ citizens, who otherwise meet the Militia Act's requirements, have no 2ndA right to keep and bear arms:

"the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​



Smokin' OP said:


> See above.



It was the militia LAW that was discriminatory, you can't argue it was the RKBA because *TO YOU* they were one in the same!

The express specific criteria of who was under militia law impressment, means that everyone else was excluded from militia law (plus those, as we see above, who met the criteria but are excluded from militia law).

That was the basis for the discriminatory gun laws and the genesis of the "militia right" interpretation.  The Southern _states_ justified their gun prohibitions on Blacks by citing the exclusion of Blacks from militia service in federal militia law, not any interpretation of the 2ndA (which did not have any action on state law).



Smokin' OP said:


> Another, WTF?
> If you were in the militia, the towns within a colony couldn't prevent you from owning a weapon.



Fail . . .  The 2ndA had no effect on any state or local laws -- either to protect what _I argue_, a individual right to arms of private citizens without any militia conditioning *or *your militia members' "right" to be armed while obeying federal militia law.



Smokin' OP said:


> People IN a militia from a colony/city/ town rule.



No, again, the 2ndA had no effect on any state or local laws.

What protected the arms of militia members was federal militia law, not the 2ndA.

Milita law _did_ operate on state and local laws and the federal militia law mandating the arms acquisition and use of militia members, was preemptive of state and local laws, by the doctrine of supremacy.

This is why I'm asking those questions.  I just can't follow your "logic" and settle the conflicts -- why any militia member would need any claim to any "right" to arms . . .   Everything he does with his gun _as a militia member_ is an obligation in _*federal*_ law that is superior to all state and local laws.

.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 30, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Incorrect.  I posted a link that details and breaks down the language of the Second.  I suggest reading it.


I've read it many times over many years of study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and how we got to where we are today.  The author is wrong.  You are wrong.  Scalia was wrong.  Alito is wrong.  I am right.  

Yes, I said all those learned people are wrong and that I am right on this.  

Now, some in this thread have accused Smokin' OP and others on the left of not reading what is written here with an open mind.  So, let's see if you can read with an open mind.  Don't skim, don't ignore, but read all of this post.

If you don't read it all, then you are doing as I pointed out to some leftist on here today, purposefully working to remain ignorant.  If you want to understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, then you will read this all with an open mind and you will know that I am right.

Don't read it as an Internet forum post; read it as you would any other research paper by any other expert on the origins of the 2nd Amendment.  Are you ready?  Do you think you're up to this?

When the Continental Congress was debating the Constitution, as you're no doubt aware, there was much disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.  One of the biggest concerns of the Anti-Federalists was that there was no bill of rights in the Constitution and that would lead to abuses.  On the other hand, the Federalists argued that since the Constitution empowered the Government then government had only those powers explicit in the Constitution.  The Federalists believed that listing some rights would lead to an assumption that those were the only rights. While you might think this is condescending, it is a critical setup for the facts I am going to teach you.  There were differing opinions on the need for a delineated list of rights protected for the people by the Constitution.

Given that the Anti-Federalists insisted on a bill of rights, and that several States were resisting ratifying the Constitution without one, there was a concession made that if the Anti-Federalists would agree to ratification, then in the very first Congress, the Congress would pass a bill of rights to satisfy the Anti-Federalists.  The Anti-Federalists agreed to ratify based on the commitment for a bill of rights and the Constitution was ratified.

This difference on the need for a bill of rights is critical to keep in mind because what happened in ratification of the Constitution is key to the proof that the militia clause had no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms.

In keeping with the agreement Madison and Jefferson promised to the Anti-Federalists, five states included their demands or proposals for what should go into the bill of rights as part of their ratification documents.

Three states, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, didn't mention in ratification any demands or expectations of future amendments but Ten out of the thirteen states did list the changes they expected immediately after ratification.  Out of the ten, five didn't mention the right to keep and bear arms in their expectations: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Georgia, Maryland, and South Carolina.  The remaining five states, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, all explicitly stated their expectations/demands that the right to keep and bear arms would be protected in the coming bill of rights.

The document, _Journal, Acts and Proceedings, The Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and Dissolved Monday, September 17, 1787, which Formed the Constitution of the United States_, includes the exact writings of the various State conventions upon ratifying the Constitution.

If all of the states had only written the right to keep and bear arms as plainly as did New Hampshire, we wouldn't at all be in this discussion today but, unfortunately, the rest weren't so succinct.  Remember that word, succinct; it's going to come up again soon.  Here's what New Hampshire said on the subject:

New Hampshire 412 - see 415 for RKBA: _*XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.*_​
Though the remaining four weren't as succinct (keep remembering this word) as was New Hampshire, they were clear just the same:

Virginia 417 - see bottom of 420 to 421 for RKBA: _*XVII. That the people have aright to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.*_​​New York 431 - see page 427 for New Yorks RKBA clause: *That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. *​​North Carolina 452 - see 443 for RKBA: *XVII*_*. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms ; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit ; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.*_​​Rhode Island 452 (same page as NC) see 456 for RKBA: *xvii. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.*​
What's the common theme in each and every one of these last four?  The right to keep and bear arms comes before the militia clause.  Is, as you and the author of your reference must say using the logic you apply to the 2nd Amendment as ratified, the militia clause is dependent upon the right to keep and bear arms.  But let's look at it closer using Rhode Island as an example.

The quoted section, xvii, starts with the word, "That".  So let's look for context of the word, "That".  The rights section of Rhode Island's ratification statement, see page 452, starts with:

_*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents ; ) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this state, do declare and make known,*_​*I. That... (and goes on to talk about private property rights)*​*II. That... (and goes on to talk about power naturally belonging to the people)*​*III. ... XVI*​*XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms...*​
And so on until paragraph XVII that we're concerned with.  So we can restate, exactly as in the original but in context to section XVII, the introduction and paragraph XVII as:

_*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known,*_* That the people have a right to keep and bear arms : that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.*​
Or, even more simply stated, remember that each clause begins with "that", meaning that each clause stands on its own in context:

_*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known,*_ t*hat the people have a right to keep and bear arms : *​​*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, *​*that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; *​​*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; *​​*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; *​​*We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, do declare and make known, that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrate in such manner as the law directs.*​
You can see that the right to keep and bear arms is completely separate from the militia clause, requiring the Federal Government to maintain the militia and that the militia is the first and best initial response in defense of a free nation.  Those two restrictions on government were combined, in the statements by the four states who used this pattern, with variations of zero to three additional clauses IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

That left James Madison with the task of combining and consolidating all of the rights that the states wanted.  He worked to make the bill of rights meet the demands of the Anti-Federalists and to combine the variations on text and style of the different states.  Here's the word again:  He wanted it to be clear and succinct. 

Each of the four variations above, again, have the same theme: THAT a well regulated militia is the "*proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.*" But the definition of the militia, contained within the four variations differed ever so slightly so, to make it common and SUCCINCT, he took out the definition of militia.

Having the definition of militia in the statement would be like Georgia saying it is the *peach, *_a fruit that develops from a single ovary that ripens into both a fleshy juicy exterior that forms the edible part of the fruit and a hard interior, called the stone or pit, that encloses the seed, _*state. * Not very succinct, is it?  It's pretty pointless to include the definition of a peach in the declaration; everyone knows what a peach is.

In the same way, it was not necessary to put in a definition of the militia; everyone knew what the militia was.  So, James Madison took these two very separate and distinct requirements on the government:
​*that the people have a right to keep and bear arms*​
and
​*that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state  *​
and, writing succinctly, and in the style of the day, combining independent statements into a single sentence, stated them as follows:

*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.*​
That he reversed the order of the two restrictions did not matter.  Everyone knew that they were separate and distinct restrictions on government.  The order did not matter just as the order in the statements by the four states that wrote it all had the right to keep and bear arms first.  

I'm going to have pie and ice cream for dessert.  Or I am going to have ice cream and pie for dessert.  What's the difference?  Nothing at all.

If the order changed the understanding or the meaning of the words, then why did not a single one of those states who wrote them in a different order object or vote against the amendment for ratification?  Do you really believe that the four states and New Hampshire were all convinced that the right to keep and bear arms could be taken or tied to the militia?  Do you really believe that they didn't very clearly intend that the militia clause was a separate, equal citizen, to their demand of a right to keep and bear arms or that soldiers not be quartered in the homes of Americans or that a standing army should be avoided or that the military should be under the strict control of civil power?  It is extremely clear that the militia clause was equal in intent and importance as the other clauses of the same sentences.  In fact, only three of the several clauses made it to the floor for a vote from Congress; the standing army and the civil power clauses didn't survive and the militia clause did.

So, it may not be in a nutshell but it is absolutely certain, proven one-hundred per cent by their own writings, that there is no prefatory clause, no explaining clause, but, instead, a separate and independent intent as I have stated.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

So, Darkwind, you're like the left; you don't want to learn because ignorance allows you to keep with the arguments you know.  Learning more takes work.  I  understand.  

Unfortunately, if gun owners don't want to learn, we're going to lose our rights, but you just make yourself comfortable.  That's more important than liberty.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> That's a complete lie.  The requirement was that you must have a weapon and were, by default,


You're FOS.
You were allowed to have a weapon if you were in the militia, it wasn't mandatory.


woodwork201 said:


> required to provide your own.


Again, FOS.


woodwork201 said:


> In some cases, there were efforts, definitely important historically but not terribly wide spread, to provide arms to those who couldn't afford them or even just to standardize.
> 
> But the requirement in all militias was to show up for appointed training or drills with your weapon in hand, whether owned by the State or otherwise.
> 
> In Pennsylvania, there was an order by the governor to have all government owned militia weapons turned in for maintenance and the militia members refused, fearing it was an attempt to disarm them - proving that even then the people feared the State would take their arms and that the state provide arms were kept in the hands and homes of the militia members.


"Turned in for "maintenance"?
Three times FOS?

Soldiers maintained their own weapons.


woodwork201 said:


> I proved you wrong on this point once before and you know it.


Four times...................A liar.


woodwork201 said:


> You just continue with the lie because you're a Democrat - which means "one who lies".


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So, Darkwind, you're like the left; you don't want to learn because ignorance allows you to keep with the arguments you know.  Learning more takes work.  I  understand.
> 
> Unfortunately, if gun owners don't want to learn, we're going to lose our rights, but you just make yourself comfortable.  That's more important than liberty.


I've had guns for over 45 years, not once did I feel, I was losing the right to have them.
It's a 40 year-old made up lie and it gets you dumbasses every time a democrat gets in office.

"They're a comin' fer my guns" and you idiots, go out and purchase guns like crazy.
Hold on, aren't they being banned?
Why would people go out and purchase something, they are convinced will be banned?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Stay focused!  I am exploring / asking about _your_ theory that the 2ndA "collective" right is for the militia and the Militia Act is a good explainer of the extent and purpose of the right.
> 
> My question, "_How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?_" assumed that you and I were only discussing the particular "people" called out in the Militia Act (which of course would exclude Blacks and Native Americans) who you argue are the "people" who possess and can exercise 2ndA's right to arms.
> 
> ...


The militia member is only under federal or state control when the militia is called up by the STATE or FEDERALLY for active duty.
THEN it has superiority.
When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS.
> You were allowed to have a weapon if you were in the militia, it wasn't mandatory.
> 
> Again, FOS.





Smokin' OP said:


> "Turned in for "maintenance"?
> Three times FOS?
> 
> Soldiers maintained their own weapons.


No, I've proven it and you're the one full of shit.  State owned arms were in the hands and homes of the Pennsylvania militia and were ordered brought in for cleaning.  Not for storage in the armory but for cleaning.



			https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj
		


Footnote  188, beginning at the bottom of page 380 and ending at the bottom of page 381.

Pretty much everything you post you make up on the fly according to what sounds good to your simple mind.  I, on the other hand, have given you the actual history as proof of the things I write.  You can lie, and no doubt you will; you can deny what you know from my teachings to be the truth, and no doubt you will, but it doesn't make what you claim to be the truth.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The militia member is only under federal or state control when the militia is called up by the STATE or FEDERALLY for active duty.
> THEN it has superiority.



Not true.  We are only discussing one narrow aspect of a citizen's activity, the acquisition, possession and use of a gun.

Once *enrolled* a citizen is compelled by law to provide himself with a firearm as described in law and a certain amount of ammunition and specific accessories and when called for drill / exercise / muster he must present himself with all the above (except when called for drill he didn't need his knapsack).  None of those requirements depend upon the member actually being *called into service*.

Your argument is that those militia purposes and activities comprise the entirety of the 2ndAmendment right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . I have asked you to explain how any of those _mandated by law_ activities can be described as a right, as understood to be an immunity / exception of government power.

I see that as an extremely vital philosophical, legal and logical question that you should be able to explain, but I suspect you will continue to ignore.



Smokin' OP said:


> When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else.



We are not talking about reading a book or going to church; as I said, for an enrolled militia member, *EVERYTHING* he does with his gun is mandated in law and apparently, according to you, there is no allowance in the law / 2ndA, to use his gun for any non-militia purpose.

What "_same laws as everybody else_"?  The class of citizens that militia law operates on, is specific and narrow and the actions allowed are very precisely limited.

According to you, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is just a militia member's duty to obey militia law, there is no discretion granted to any citizen (even an enrolled militia member) for any personal use of his militia arm.

There are no other laws for a citizen to consider or follow directing arms possession and use but _militia *law*_, correct?

What are "the same laws as anyone else" when there is no "everyone else" under militia law impressment?

.

.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

WTF?


woodwork201 said:


> No, I've proven it and you're the one full of shit.  State owned arms were in the hands and homes of the Pennsylvania militia and were ordered brought in for cleaning.  Not for storage in the armory but for cleaning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


188 188 While the proposed United States Constitution was debated,  the government of Pennsylvania attempted to collect the public arms for cleaning and maintenance. A very large number of Pennsylvanians, however, refused to surrender their public arms even temporarily-fearing that the new federal government might be oppressive and that the swords) owned by individuals; individuals could use them for militia service, and a person with his own private arms would not need the charity of public arms. The distinction between the two types of arms was set forth in the 1823 Return of the Adjutant General of the enrolled militia in Pennsylvania, which contained an inventory of the supply of arms (of all types) available for militia use."

WTF? "188 While the proposed United States Constitution was debated"?
So the US government wasn't even established.

Pennsylvania's militia was under control of the state.
Hmmmmm...........sounds almost like a state regulation.


"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.


Kangaroo court case laws violate the second amendment portion that says shall not be infringed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The militia member is only under federal or state control when the militia is called up by the STATE or FEDERALLY for active duty.
> THEN it has superiority.
> When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else.


Actually no. The unorganized militia cannot be federalized. Without the approval of the state governor.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Goes without stating YOU ARE.
> 
> No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.
> 
> ...


Banning the sale of guns to American Indians is the argument you want to fight on? Now why would you want to ban firearms from people? Why do you support racism?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Not true.


YES, it is.
When the states militia is called up for federal duty, they are under federal authority, along with the commander of the states commander.


Abatis said:


> We are only discussing one narrow aspect of a citizen's activity, the acquisition, possession and use of a gun.
> 
> Once *enrolled* a citizen is compelled by law to provide himself with a firearm as described in law and a certain amount of ammunition and specific accessories and when called for drill / exercise / muster he must present himself with all the above (except when called for drill he didn't need his knapsack).  None of those requirements depend upon the member actually being *called into service*.


So, the e*nrolled* citizen MUST have a firearm, ammo and accessories, show up for drills but *NOT *actually be called up for service?

Where were these drills held at and who did the member report to?


Abatis said:


> Your argument is that those militia purposes and activities comprise the entirety of the 2ndAmendment right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . I have asked you to explain how any of those _mandated by law_ activities can be described as a right, as understood to be an immunity / exception of government power.
> 
> I see that as an extremely vital philosophical, legal and logical question that you should be able to explain, but I suspect you will continue to ignore.


As you and others ignore "A well- regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Means if you aren't in an active-duty situation, people are subject to local and state/colony laws.


Abatis said:


> We are not talking about reading a book or going to church; as I said, for an enrolled militia member, *EVERYTHING* he does with his gun is mandated in law and apparently, according to you, there is no allowance in the law / 2ndA, to use his gun for any non-militia purpose.


Never stated that, people didn't have take out.
Most, if not all, had to supply their own food.
Including people in the militia.


Abatis said:


> What "_same laws as everybody else_"?  The class of citizens that militia law operates on, is specific and narrow and the actions allowed are very precisely limited.


Yes, WHEN the person is on active duty, otherwise, local or state/colony laws applied.


Abatis said:


> According to you, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is just a militia member's duty to obey militia law,


Yes, hence:  'Well regulated".


Abatis said:


> there is no discretion granted to any citizen (even an enrolled militia member) for any personal use of his militia arm.


Never stated that.


Abatis said:


> There are no other laws for a citizen to consider or follow directing arms possession and use but _militia *law*_, correct?


Never stated that either, when not active duty, they were subject to local laws.


Abatis said:


> What are "the same laws as anyone else" when there is no "everyone else" under militia law impressment?
> 
> .
> 
> .


What part of under local authority don't you understand?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Actually no. The unorganized militia cannot be federalized. Without the approval of the state governor.


WTF? 

Yes, they can and were, it's called a draft.
The "unorganized" militia wasn't part of any state's militia.

That was the meaning behind "well regulated".


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 31, 2022)




----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF?
> 
> Yes, they can and were, it's called a draft.
> The "unorganized" militia wasn't part of any state's militia.
> ...


You're a racist piece of shit that supports gun control. You fucking idiot well regulated means in working order as to be expected. It does not mean government regulation


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Banning the sale of guns to American Indians is the argument you want to fight on? Now why would you want to ban firearms from people? Why do you support racism?


I didn't, moron.
They couldn't join the militia, either.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> View attachment 676526
> 
> View attachment 676527


SOOOOOOO, when did the massive gun confiscation take place?
1993? 1994? 1995?
They seemed to have missed mine.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Jul 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're a racist piece of shit that supports gun control.


You're a fucking moron, gun nut.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> You fucking idiot well regulated means in working order as to be expected. It does not mean government regulation


Sure it does, you fucking idiot.
In the RWNJ "Dikshunary"?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Goes without stating YOU ARE.
> 
> No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.
> 
> ...





Smokin' OP said:


> I didn't, moron.
> They couldn't join the militia, either.


Maybe you should read what you wrote. You support racism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're a fucking moron, gun nut.
> 
> Sure it does, you fucking idiot.
> In the RWNJ "Dikshunary"?


You support racism dumbass


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It is not an explanatory clause in any way.  It is a requirement that the government maintain a militia and consider and use it as the primary first defense of the security of the state.  It is a compound sentence.  It could even be considered a running-on sentence, where the author communicated two unrelated topics separated by a comma or semi-colon rather than a period.
> 
> Five different States included in their statements/documents ratifying the Constitution that it was done so on the agreement that there would be an amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> ...


If you are going to make up an argument out of whole cloth, at least be pithy about it.

No one with any understanding of the language, then or today, can read the Second as a government requirement to form or stand up a militia of any kind.

The prefatory clause, as is agreed to by most legal scholars and linguists, is an explanation for the purpose of why government SHALL not infringe up the right of the people.

In every instance where the Bill of Rights speaks, the Amendments are either a restriction on government or an unassailable right OF THE PEOPLE.

Trying to bring into the discussion what other state constitution say is to bring nothing but a word salad that drives the discussion off topic.   We are talking about the language in the United States Constitution.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 31, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So, Darkwind, you're like the left; you don't want to learn because ignorance allows you to keep with the arguments you know.  Learning more takes work.  I  understand.
> 
> Unfortunately, if gun owners don't want to learn, we're going to lose our rights, but you just make yourself comfortable.  That's more important than liberty.


What I am is unwilling to be turned from the truth by someone who wishes to redefine specific clauses in the Constitution for political purposes.

The Second Amendment is clear and on point.

The right to keep and bare arms is an individual right and bars governments from infringing upon it.


----------



## Abatis (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES, it is.
> When the states militia is called up for federal duty, they are under federal authority, along with the commander of the states commander.



I am talking about the condition of being enrolled _but not activated_.  That could be a condition 27 years long, if one enrolled at 18 and aged out of militia service at 45 and never called into service.  That enrolled militia member's arms keeping and bearing was under militia law for every moment of that time whether called into service or not.  

Isn't that the core of your theory, that citizen's possession and use of a gun was conditioned upon and qualified by his attachment with the militia, there was no personal discretion, no personal "right" to keep and bear a gun?

I do agree that when a specific company of activated state militia is called into federal service, everything changes, to the point that if he commits a crime, he is under the UCMJ not civil law and loses the 5th Amendment's grand jury protections.  

Discerning if and when that specific moment in time occurs, _when a militia member actually came into federal service_, is an important point of law in the majority of Supreme Court decisions deciding disputes and conflicts between the feds and the states over militia control (I'll note, never once referring to the 2ndA for any guidance).

By all means, examine the Supreme Court's militia cases and try to find the instances where the 2ndA guided their reasoning or decisions.  Here are the cases:

_Houston v. Moore_, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820),
_Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827),
_Selective Draft Law Cases_, 245 U.S. 366 (1917),
_Perpich v. Department of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)



Smokin' OP said:


> So, the e*nrolled* citizen MUST have a firearm, ammo and accessories, show up for drills but *NOT *actually be called up for service?



No more than a kid who turned 18 y.o. yesterday who *obeys the law and signs up for Selective Service* today, has been drafted.  

That list of enrolled citizens was often called the "alarm list", it meant little more than when the call went out, these were the citizens obligated to show up (with the arms, ammo and accoutrements as mandated in law).

You still have not explained how any aspect of all this obedience of militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".



Smokin' OP said:


> Where were these drills held at and who did the member report to?



There was being *"called out to exercise"* and called into service.  As for location, the town square or a pasture I would imagine, large enough to accommodate the military exercises necessary.  

The Militia Act notes this activity:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when *called out to exercise* or into service, except, that *when called out on company days to exercise only*, he may appear without a knapsack."​​You still have not explained how any aspect of obeying militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".



Smokin' OP said:


> As you and others ignore "A well- regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".



If by "others" you mean Congress and SCOTUS and everyone except 20th Century collectivist anti-gun activists, yeah, the declaratory clause of the 2ndA has never been examined to inform, or held to direct, *any *aspect of militia organization, training, deployment or any control by *any* entity in authority, federal or state.  

Your theory is a bunch of bullshit.



Smokin' OP said:


> Means if you aren't in an active-duty situation, people are subject to local and state/colony laws.



So the federal law *you say* is the sole source of direction for the arms keeping and bearing of _all_ citizens (obligating some, excluding from all keeping and bearing for others) is mooted when the militia are not in service, and then the  states decide who the proper arms keepers and bearers are?  What exactly is the legal process by which the federal militia law is rendered null?



Smokin' OP said:


> Never stated that, people didn't have take out.
> Most, if not all, had to supply their own food.
> Including people in the militia.



You said, "When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else."

What are these other laws?  The only laws we are discussing are the *federal militia laws* that your theory says direct the arms keeping and bearing of ALL citizens and limits arms keeping and bearing to militia service and the 2ndA backs that up . . .   

A citizen is either in or out, either enrolled and mandated to provide themselves with a gun and can only use it when called, or a citizen is _out_ with absolutely no opportunity to keep and bear arms for any purpose.

You say militia law is the full exposition of what a citizen can do with a gun, so please tell me what OTHER laws (and written by who) are citizens to "follow" that allows any _*other*_ keeping and bearing of arms?



Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, WHEN the person is on active duty, otherwise, local or state/colony laws applied.



Your entire theory demands federal law enjoy field preemption.  Federal militia law directs all militia organization and control allowing states to undertake the training of the militia (regimen mandated by congress) and naming of officers.

There is no state militia law that takes over, the entire structure is established under Art I, §8 of the Constitution (and only §8).



Smokin' OP said:


> Yes, hence:  'Well regulated".



Well, again, that just can't be . . . The declaratory clause of the 2ndA has never been examined to inform, or held to direct, *any *aspect of militia organization, training, deployment or any control by *any* entity, federal or state.

Actually, "well regulated" is just a compliment, an accolade earned by a particular company of militia after demonstrating their character as a fighting unit and expertness in military execution.  In general terms, one should read "well regulated militia" to say, the militia is properly functioning and in operational order and condition.

That use would put the term "well regulated" in opposition to its actual antonym, "ill-regulated" which has chugged-on for centuries, unmolested by political redefining and misconstruction.  "Ill-regulated" simply describes a fighting corps in substandard condition incapable or unprepared to function as a battle-ready, cohesive unit.



Smokin' OP said:


> Never stated that.



That you do not comprehend the outcomes your theory forces, is not surprising.



Smokin' OP said:


> Never stated that either, when not active duty, they were subject to local laws.



There were no "local (or state) laws"; there was only the federal Militia Act of 1792-95 and all entities, federal, state and local, (and the citizens deemed obligated by law to serve), are controlled by it.  

Well, until the Militia Act of 1903 which rescinded the Militia Act of 1972-95 and eliminated the militia duty impressment on citizens and absorbed the clause 15 & 16 state militias into the clause 12 federal army.



Smokin' OP said:


> What part of under local authority don't you understand?



The part where there is any . . .


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF? "188 While the proposed United States Constitution was debated"?
> So the US government wasn't even established.
> 
> Pennsylvania's militia was under control of the state.
> Hmmmmm...........sounds almost like a state regulation.



But the Pennsylvania militia was established.  Pennsylvania was a state before the Constitution was ratified.  Do you not even know that the States already existed?  The Constitution didn't change anything in the States.  The militias had state owned arms in their homes.

And, yes, of course the militia was under the control of the state.  Who ever claimed otherwise?  That wasn't firearm regulation; that was "well regulated militia".  Geeze, how stupid can one guy be?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Actually no. The unorganized militia cannot be federalized. Without the approval of the state governor.


Where does it say that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Where does it say that?


Because the unorganized militia is not part of the national guard.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> If you are going to make up an argument out of whole cloth, at least be pithy about it.
> 
> No one with any understanding of the language, then or today, can read the Second as a government requirement to form or stand up a militia of any kind.
> 
> ...



So reading isn't something you're good at, is it?  I didn't mention a single state constitution; I mentioned what the states demanded as a condition of ratifying the United States Constitution and what they demanded be included in a bill of rights.

If you were capable of reading with an open mind, which clearly you are not, you would understand that the states explicitly named the militia clause as a completely separate requirement on the government. In fact, they specified the right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause second.  

That they ratified the amendments in what would become The Bill of Rights, proves that they believed that Madison's edits, edits only designed to bring the 4 variations into a common statement, did not change the meaning or intent.  Had it done that, changed the meaning or intent, as understood by the entire Congress and the Legislatures of the 13 States, they would not have ratified the amendments that became the Bill of Rights.

Do you honestly believe that 4 states explicitly demanded in the very document in which they communicated their ratification of the Constitution of the United States, that there be a clause stating that the militia is critical to the defense of a free state, but then would let it be turned into nothing more than a reason for the right to keep and bear arms?  Well of course you do because you have a close mind, not capable of thinking for yourself, but can only parrot the words others wrote for you.

So, you're right.  What counts is in the Constitution, but to understand the Constitution you can't read it as though it was written in 2022.  You have to read it as if it was written in 1789.  I showed you exactly how to do that but you chose not to read the entire post and not to actually learn anything new.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Because the unorganized militia is not part of the national guard.


Where in the Constitution does it mention the National Guard?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 31, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Where in the Constitution does it mention the National Guard?


Where does it mention the unorganized militia?
Dumbass the militia was renamed national guard. The unorganized militia has no connection with the national guard. As a matter of fact you posted the miltila make-up not to long ago stop being a leftist.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 31, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Where does it mention the unorganized militia?
> Dumbass the militia was renamed national guard. The unorganized militia has no connection with the national guard. As a matter of fact you posted the miltila make-up not to long ago stop being a leftist.


You fell for that lie, hook, line, and sinker.  The militia was not renamed to the National Guard  unless you think the Constitution allows sending the militia to Afghanistan.  

Please quote where in the Constitution it says that the militia can be used in any overseas or international war?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 1, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You fell for that lie, hook, line, and sinker.  The militia was not renamed to the National Guard  unless you think the Constitution allows sending the militia to Afghanistan.
> 
> Please quote where in the Constitution it says that the militia can be used in any overseas or international war?


The national guard you dumbfuck became to be in 1903 militia act. It was the the unorganized militia was created. The reason for the unorganized militia was to have abled body persons ready who have no connection with the regular military or national guard.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 1, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I am talking about the condition of being enrolled _but not activated_.  That could be a condition 27 years long, if one enrolled at 18 and aged out of militia service at 45 and never called into service.  That enrolled militia member's arms keeping and bearing was under militia law for every moment of that time whether called into service or not.


You're FOS, when NOT by the state/colony/ federally activated the militia member would have to follow all local/colony/state laws. 


Abatis said:


> Isn't that the core of your theory, that citizen's possession and use of a gun was conditioned upon and qualified by his attachment with the militia,


NO.


Abatis said:


> there was no personal discretion, no personal "right" to keep and bear a gun?


NO.
If local laws permitted possession of a gun, they could, if the rules stated they couldn't, they couldn't.


Abatis said:


> I do agree that when a specific company of activated state militia is called into federal service, everything changes, to the point that if he commits a crime, he is under the UCMJ not civil law and loses the 5th Amendment's grand jury protections.
> 
> Discerning if and when that specific moment in time occurs, _when a militia member actually came into federal service_, is an important point of law in the majority of Supreme Court decisions deciding disputes and conflicts between the feds and the states over militia control (I'll note, never once referring to the 2ndA for any guidance).
> 
> ...





Abatis said:


> _Martin v. Mott_, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827),
> _Selective Draft Law Cases_, 245 U.S. 366 (1917),
> _Perpich v. Department of Defense_, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)


*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.*
It's the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

*You keep ignoring that.*



Abatis said:


> No more than a kid who turned 18 y.o. yesterday who *obeys the law and signs up for Selective Service* today, has been drafted.


WTF?
No, signing up for the selective service doesn't mean you're drafted, you could be.
Just like signing up for the state's militia, you aren't drafted but you could be.


Abatis said:


> That list of enrolled citizens was often called the "alarm list", it meant little more than when the call went out, these were the citizens obligated to show up (with the arms, ammo and accoutrements as mandated in law).
> 
> You still have not explained how any aspect of all this obedience of militia law, can be considered an exercise of a "right".


I have, you just ignore the answer, just like the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.
During active duty, a militia member can carry their weapon(s) anywhere, when under the command of the federal government.
That is their right.


Abatis said:


> There was being *"called out to exercise"* and called into service.


Just like today's NG.


Abatis said:


> As for location, the town square or a pasture I would imagine, large enough to accommodate the military exercises necessary.
> 
> The Militia Act notes this activity:
> 
> ...


You're FOS.
When you keep ignoring the FIRST part of the 2nd amendment.

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.*



Abatis said:


> So the federal law *you say* is the sole source of direction for the arms keeping and bearing of _all_ citizens (obligating some, excluding from all keeping and bearing for others) is mooted when the militia are not in service, and then the  states decide who the proper arms keepers and bearers are?


Yes.


Abatis said:


> What exactly is the legal process by which the federal militia law is rendered null?


There isn't.


Abatis said:


> You said, "When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else."
> 
> What are these other laws?


WTF?
You can't comprehend?
State, local/colony laws.

Just like any military member now, 


Abatis said:


> The only laws we are discussing are the *federal militia laws*


NO, *WE *aren't, the militia is a STATE organization.


Abatis said:


> that your theory says direct the arms keeping and bearing of ALL citizens and limits arms keeping and bearing to militia service and the 2ndA backs that up . . .


You're FOS, never stated that, you THINK that's my theory.
If local laws dictate it, people may or may NOT carry a gun.


Abatis said:


> A citizen is either in or out, either enrolled and mandated to provide themselves with a gun and can only use it when called, or a citizen is _out_ with absolutely no opportunity to keep and bear arms for any purpose.


WTF?
They didn't have takeout, how do you think most people got their meat?


Abatis said:


> You say militia law is the full exposition of what a citizen can do with a gun, so please tell me what OTHER laws (and written by who) are citizens to "follow" that allows any _*other*_ keeping and bearing of arms?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's in the FIRST part of the amendment, YOU keep ignoring.


Abatis said:


> Actually, "well regulated" is just a compliment, an accolade earned by a particular company of militia after demonstrating their character as a fighting unit and expertness in military execution.


In what dictionary?

reg·u·late
[ˈreɡyəˌlāt]

VERB

control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.



Abatis said:


> In general terms, one should read "well regulated militia" to say, the militia is properly functioning and in operational order and condition.


Sure, that's what it *should* say...................But doesn't.


Abatis said:


> That use would put the term "well regulated" in opposition to its actual antonym, "ill-regulated" which has chugged-on for centuries, unmolested by political redefining and misconstruction.  "Ill-regulated" simply describes a fighting corps in substandard condition incapable or unprepared to function as a battle-ready, cohesive unit.
> 
> 
> 
> That you do not comprehend the outcomes your theory forces, is not surprising.


WTF?
YOU'RE the one the isn't comprehending or just choose to ignore.


Abatis said:


> There were no "local (or state) laws"; there was only the federal Militia Act of 1792-95 and all entities, federal, state and local, (and the citizens deemed obligated by law to serve), are controlled by it.


You're FOS. 
Militia's first and foremost are/were STATE/colonial entities


Abatis said:


> Well, until the Militia Act of 1903 which rescinded the Militia Act of 1972-95 and eliminated the militia duty impressment on citizens and absorbed the clause 15 & 16 state militias into the clause 12 federal army.


They *could *be, when deemed necessary

The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as the *Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903* or the *Dick Act*, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard *could* *be* federalized. It also provided federal funds to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. The new National Guard was to organize units of similar form and quality to those of the regular Army, and intended to achieve the same training, education, and readiness requirements as active duty units.[2.


Abatis said:


> The part where there is any . . .


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 1, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> But the Pennsylvania militia was established.


NO, it wasn't, they had local militias.

Prior to the end of 1776, there was no militia or minuteman company established in Colonial Pennsylvania.  The Provincial government was ruled by the Quakers.

The Pennsylvania Militia was recognized as officially being organized on* March 17, 1777* through the first militia act.

On March 17, 1777, the General Assembly passed a state militia law. The militia law decreed the President of the Supreme Executive Council as the Commander-in-Chief of the new militia. The law further provided a local person, called a County Lieutenant, who held the rank of Colonel,  put in charge to implement the militia according to the law. A militia was set up for each county, and for the city of Philadelphia.

The Supreme Executive Council received a list of names from the General Assembly and appointed Robert McCallister to be County Lieutenant and several others to be Sub-Lieutenants for York County, to implement the militia law. 



woodwork201 said:


> Pennsylvania was a state before the Constitution was ratified.


NO SHIT, they, as well as 12 others had to ratify it.
On* December 12, 1787, Pennsylvania becomes* the second state to ratify the Constitution,


woodwork201 said:


> Do you not even know that the States already existed?


WTF?


woodwork201 said:


> The Constitution didn't change anything in the States.  The militias had state owned arms in their homes.
> 
> And, yes, of course the militia was under the control of the state.  Who ever claimed otherwise?  That wasn't firearm regulation; that was "well regulated militia".


Where did you get that from?
Didn't specifically claim it was.

"Pennsylvania's militia was under control of the state".
"Hmmmmm...........sounds almost like a state regulation".

Mean's they were organized by their commander, under the direction/REGULATION of the state.
They could regulate firearms or not, as well as other rules.


woodwork201 said:


> Geeze, how stupid can one guy be?


IDK, you're up there, in the stupidity department, along with others.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


If gun ownership is banned, we're no longer a free state.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 1, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If gun ownership is banned, we're no longer a free state.


Possibly but no one is even suggesting that.
Besides republicans, repeating the same 40year-old lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> You're FOS, when NOT by the state/colony/ federally activated the militia member would have to follow all local/colony/state laws.
> 
> NO.
> 
> ...


Dumbass that free state includes tyranny of the government. So tell me would the government try to defend itself from it's own tyranny?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Possibly but no one is even suggesting that.
> Besides republicans, repeating the same 40year-old lie.


Yeah, an all out ban is the objective.  It's ok.  You can stop lying about it.  We know, now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 1, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Yeah, an all out ban is the objective.  It's ok.  You can stop lying about it.  We know, now.


Not just ban but confiscation.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumbass that free state includes tyranny of the government.


Only Trump's.
The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> So tell me would the government try to defend itself from it's own tyranny?


The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Only Trump's.
> The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.
> 
> 
> The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.


Tyranny of the government doesn't get a pass if you want a free state. So tell me will a tyrannical government defend itself from itself to maintain a free state?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 1, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Yeah, an all out ban is the objective.  It's ok.  You can stop lying about it.  We know, now.


No, that's the RWNJ/gun manufacturers/republican objective.
Tell their gullible cult, THEY  are going to ban/confiscate guns.............keep repeating it for 40 years.
The morons will go out and purchase something, they're convinced will be banned/confiscated.

It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.
A perfect match for gullible RWNJ's.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 1, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Tyranny of the government doesn't get a pass if you want a free state.


Hence: The January 6th committee.


bigrebnc1775 said:


> So tell me will a tyrannical government defend itself from itself to maintain a free state?


The capitol police did a good job, the January 6th committee, is exposing the rest.
The justice department will take care of them, some have already been sentenced to prison.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, that's the RWNJ/gun manufacturers/republican objective.
> Tell their gullible cult, THEY  are going to ban/confiscate guns.............keep repeating it for 40 years.
> The morons will go out and purchase something, they're convinced will be banned/confiscated.
> 
> ...


"If I had the votes, I would ban them all" - Dianne Feinstein.

The current bill bans all semi-automatics.  Don't lie and say they aren't trying to ban everything.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Hence: The January 6th committee.
> 
> The capitol police did a good job, the January 6th committee, is exposing the rest.
> The justice department will take care of them, some have already been sentenced to prison.


The witch hunt looking for anything but can't find their asshole committee.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.


The USSC discarded your argument 2 decades ago.
Please keep up.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 1, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
> It was their OPINION.


Their opinion matters.
Your does not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 1, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> If you are going to make up an argument out of whole cloth, at least be pithy about it.
> No one with any understanding of the language, then or today, can read the Second as a government requirement to form or stand up a militia of any kind.


You are correct - "...being necessary..." is a statement of condition, not a specific requirement laid upon the state.
The constitution gives congress the power to "well regulate" the militia, and creates no particular requirement of congress as to the level of anything it must maintain when doing so - however congress chooses regulates the militia, it is "well-regulated".

That is, the definition of "well regulated" is left to Congress, as limited by the powers granted to it in that regard and the restrictions found in the 2nd.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 1, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So reading isn't something you're good at, is it?  I didn't mention a single state constitution; I mentioned what the states demanded as a condition of ratifying the United States Constitution and what they demanded be included in a bill of rights.
> 
> If you were capable of reading with an open mind, which clearly you are not, you would understand that the states explicitly named the militia clause as a completely separate requirement on the government. In fact, they specified the right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause second.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you should reconsider how it is you frame an argument and what manner of information you include in that arguement.

I happen to read at a Graduate level.  You?  I have doubts.,


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The witch hunt looking for anything but can't find their asshole committee.


Sure, a witch hunt with audio, video and witnesses.
That's already catching plenty of "witches".


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 2, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The USSC discarded your argument 2 decades ago.
> Please keep up.


NO, they ignored it.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 2, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Their opinion matters.
> Your does not.


Yeah, and that's why we are in the situation we are in now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, a witch hunt with audio, video and witnesses.
> That's already catching plenty of "witches".


That's an ignorant lie.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That's an ignorant lie.


Oh' that's right, FOX is boycotting the entire coverage.
So, if FOX doesn't report it, it's a lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Oh' that's right, FOX is boycotting the entire coverage.
> So, if FOX doesn't report it, it's a lie.


It's a 100% guarantee if it's reported by any news sources you watch it will be a lie.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's a 100% guarantee if it's reported by any news sources you watch it will be a lie.


So, just as suspected.

The Trump cult lied when they were in Trump's regime, now they are lying under oath?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> So, just as suspected.
> 
> The Trump cult lied when they were in Trump's regime, now they are lying under oath?


Oh DNC cultist know thy own hypocrisy


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 2, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oh DNC cultist know thy own hypocrisy


No, we know of Trump cultist/RNC hypocrisy....................and gaslighting/projection.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 2, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, we know of Trump cultist/RNC hypocrisy....................and gaslighting/projection.


No you DNC cultists with the DNC propaganda media have mastered gaslighting for those not knowing how it's done.


----------



## hunarcy (Aug 2, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> "If I had the votes, I would ban them all" - Dianne Feinstein.
> 
> The current bill bans all semi-automatics.  Don't lie and say they aren't trying to ban everything.


Trolls lie...they can't help themselves.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Oh' that's right, FOX is boycotting the entire coverage.
> So, if FOX doesn't report it, it's a lie.



No..when the democrats run it, it is a lie…,,,,they refused to let the republicans pick the republicans on the committee, they call all the witnesses, ask all the questions, and refuse to release 1,400 hours of actual video……if you think this isn’t a lie, then Soviet show trials must really be your thing……


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No..when the democrats run it, it is a lie…,,,,they refused to let the republicans pick the republicans on the committee, they call all the witnesses, ask all the questions, and refuse to release 1,400 hours of actual video……if you think this isn’t a lie, then Soviet show trials must really be your thing……


As usual, you're FOS.

Democrats refused to let the crackpots that could be witnesses on the committee.

Pelosi said she had no objection to the other three representatives picked by McCarthy — Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls.

It was Trump's ass kisser who pulled all of them.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy says he will pull all five of his picks to serve on the select committee investigating the January 6 assault on the Capitol, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't rescind her rejection of two of his recommendations, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.
"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts."

Call witnesses?
It isn't court it's a hearing, moron.

And BTW, the committee called witnesses, Trumptard's from Trump's own regime, including his own daughter and SIL they could have asked any questions they wanted.
Why didn't they?

The "show" trial was republicans 12 year, multi-million waste of taxpayer $$$ trying to get Clinton, and didn't even get an arrest.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> As usual, you're FOS.
> 
> Democrats refused to let the crackpots that could be witnesses on the committee.
> 
> ...



Wrong…….they didn’t want republicans who would actually ask real questions………never before has the party in power refused the other parties committee choices…never, until this show trial.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> As usual, you're FOS.
> 
> Democrats refused to let the crackpots that could be witnesses on the committee.
> 
> ...


Crack pots? Don't you mean hunters crack pipe?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Crack pots? Don't you mean hunters crack pipe?


NO, retard.
People with a far worse addiction than crack.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.
> 
> *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".*
> 
> ...


/------/ Here we go again. Monkeypox gun grabbers never learn.
The Second Amendment is not sloppy or ungrammatical, as some modern analysts claim. Rather, the Amendment is written in a variety of English that no longer exists. Since none of us are native speakers of late 18th century American English, we cannot expect to have good intuitions about its grammaticality or interpretation. 








						The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment
					






					firearmslaw.duke.edu
				



Rather than the concluding clause, let's focus here on the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.".
*In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NO, retard.
> People with a far worse addiction than crack.
> 
> View attachment 677521


Says the DNC cultist.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The national guard you dumbfuck became to be in 1903 militia act. It was the the unorganized militia was created. The reason for the unorganized militia was to have abled body persons ready who have no connection with the regular military or national guard.



Fail.  I know you usually like to pretend that you support the Constitution and I believe you really do like your guns but the Constitution is lost, the right to keep and bear arms is lost, if those who claim to defend it are not more solid in their understanding and in their defense than are you.

Here's the retest:  Show where in the Constitution it states that the militia can be used in foreign wars.  The Constitution is quite clear about which conditions the Federal Government is permitted to call out the militia.  

Bonus points if you can show where in those specific conditions for which the militia can be nationalized says "to fight in foreign wars" or anything meaning the same.  

Of course, once again, if you can't show where in the Constitution it says that the militia can be federalized for fighting in foreign wars,  you fail again.  And if you can't show which of the enumerated powers for the Federal Government to call out the militia includes anything meaning "to fight in foreign wars" then you not only fail, you're kicked out of class for being a fucking idiot.

If you think you know the Constitution and if you think you defend it, if you think you truly defend the right to keep and bear arms or any other protected right, then you should be able to back up any claim supporting any government power or authority with a reference to where in the Constitution that power comes.  

So, once again, where in the Constitution does it say that the militia can be used in foreign wars?  Or another question, where does it say the militia can be joined with a standing army?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 3, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NO, it wasn't, they had local militias.
> 
> Prior to the end of 1776, there was no militia or minuteman company established in Colonial Pennsylvania.  The Provincial government was ruled by the Quakers.
> 
> ...



See, your own quote proves me right and you an idiot.

I said, quoted actually, that many in the militia in Pennsylvania, at the time the Constitution was being debated, refused to turn in their state owned weapons.  That's important because you said they didn't keep their state own weapons unless called out. Obviously they had their state owned weapons in their possession or how else could they refuse to turn them in?

Now you argue that the Pennsylvania militia wasn't created until 1777 so I am wrong?  You need to go back to elementary school.  Please answer so the whole class can hear you... When did the debate on the US Constitution begin?  Which year?  Here's a hint: It was a full decade AFTER 1777.  

So, when the Pennsylvania militia had state owned weapons in their private possession for use in their militia duties, and many militia members refused to turn those state owned weapons in for cleaning, it would have been at least a decade after 1777.  Right?  Got it?

Let's put it in 3rd grade terms for you.

MilitiaMan Bob was in the Pennsylvania Militia.  That Militia was created in 1777.  

In 1787, there began and ended a discussion and debate, called the Constitutional Convention, over creating a new constitution for the United States.

If MilitiaMan Bob had a militia rifle owned by the Pennsylvania Militia and, during the debate of the new Constitution, MilitiaMan Bob refused to turn it in to the State for cleaning, how many years after the formation of the Pennsylvania Militia did Bob refuse to turn in his militia rifle to the State?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 3, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Perhaps you should reconsider how it is you frame an argument and what manner of information you include in that arguement.
> 
> I happen to read at a Graduate level.  You?  I have doubts.,



Did you read the post? 

What does that mean, you read at the graduate level?  I have a lot of MS degree employees working for me.  On occasion, I have PhD grads working for me; they come and go and right now there are none.  Why are they working for me and not me for them?  Because they can't read or write well enough to effectively communicate ideas or to follow standards and guidelines.  Don't get me wrong, some of them are very smart but having a Masters degree is no proof of intelligence.


----------



## Darkwind (Aug 3, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Did you read the post?
> 
> What does that mean, you read at the graduate level?  I have a lot of MS degree employees working for me.  On occasion, I have PhD grads working for me; they come and go and right now there are none.  Why are they working for me and not me for them?  Because they can't read or write well enough to effectively communicate ideas or to follow standards and guidelines.  Don't get me wrong, some of them are very smart but having a Masters degree is no proof of intelligence.


Having college graduates work for you is proof of your intelligence?

Wow.

I read at a level considered "graduate" by English scholars.

I read the post, and you are wrong, as you lack the understanding of a simple compound statement that uses an explanatory clause to justify the premise of the foremost thought.

Give it up.  The Second Amendment does NOT give authority to the state to form militias and they -- militias -- are not a requirement for the ownership of weapons.  

Full stop.

You can disagree all you like, but you are clearly wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 4, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Fail.  I know you usually like to pretend that you support the Constitution and I believe you really do like your guns but the Constitution is lost, the right to keep and bear arms is lost, ?


Dumbfuck your word salad wasn't read. The second amendment has been weaken however gun owners are taking it back. I'm a gun rights activists you are not. I give thousands of dollars every year to groups like the second amendment foundation, FPC, Gun Owners of America. I am a life time member of the Second Amendment Foundation and the GOA.  I am also a paid subscriber to Armed American Radio. The three groups I mentioned are the ones that fight in court defending my rights. So who do you contribute too?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 4, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> See, your own quote proves me right and you an idiot.
> 
> I said, quoted actually, that many in the militia in Pennsylvania, at the time the Constitution was being debated, refused to turn in their state owned weapons.  That's important because you said they didn't keep their state own weapons unless called out. Obviously they had their state owned weapons in their possession or how else could they refuse to turn them in?
> 
> Now you argue that the Pennsylvania militia wasn't created until 1777 so I am wrong?  You need to go back to elementary school.  Please answer so the whole class can hear you... When did the debate on the US Constitution begin?  Which year?  Here's a hint: It was a full decade AFTER 1777.


The constitution was written at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and was ratified through a series of state conventions held in 1787 and 1788.


woodwork201 said:


> So, when the Pennsylvania militia had state owned weapons in their private possession for use in their militia duties, and many militia members refused to turn those state owned weapons in for cleaning, it would have been at least a decade after 1777.  Right?  Got it?
> 
> Let's put it in 3rd grade terms for you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Only Trump's.
> The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.
> 
> 
> The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.


Trump didn't try to overthrow the government, neither.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Hence: The January 6th committee.
> 
> The capitol police did a good job, the January 6th committee, is exposing the rest.
> The justice department will take care of them, some have already been sentenced to prison.


Are you calling the Jerkoff 6 committee tyranny?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 4, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> If you think you know the Constitution and if you think you defend it, if you think you truly defend the right to keep and bear arms or any other protected right, then you should be able to back up any claim supporting any government power or authority with a reference to where in the Constitution that power comes.


Similarly...
You should be able to tell us the ownership and use of which "arms" are protected by the 2nd, which "arms" are not, and where the constituton draws the line.
And you can't.
You shall now prove me right, and you an idiot.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Only Trump's.
> The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.
> 
> 
> The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.


/----/ And neither did President Trump. Unless you can provide a direct quote from Trump telling his supporters to storm the Capital, you need to take your false prophecy elsewhere.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 4, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Trump didn't try to overthrow the government, neither.


Yes, he did, and his cult are still trying.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 4, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Are you calling the Jerkoff 6 committee tyranny?


No, but Trump's cult is.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 4, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ And neither did President Trump. Unless you can provide a direct quote from Trump telling his supporters to storm the Capital, you need to take your false prophecy elsewhere.


Trump didn't need to, Trump's cult was already going to attack the capitol and he never to them to go home, after his pity rally, he told them to go.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NO ONE WANTS TO disarm ANYONE.


Correct. 

But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Trump didn't need to, Trump's cult was already going to attack the capitol and he never to them to go home, after his pity rally, he told them to go.


/———/ And you know this how???  TDS Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.


/———/ Yeah, we believe you. Sure we do.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.


It gets the gullible to buy more guns.
You would have to be pretty damned stupid to go out and purchase something, you're convinced...........will be banned.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 4, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ And you know this how???  TDS Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha


Because.................it fucking happened, dumbass.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ Yeah, we believe you. Sure we do.


Guns aren't going to be banned or confiscated, that's nothing but rightwing demagoguery and lies.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> It gets the gullible to buy more guns.
> You would have to be pretty damned stupid to go out and purchase something, you're convinced...........will be banned.


Conservatives lie about bans and confiscation to keep the base frightened, angry, and going to the polls.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, but Trump's cult is.


How so?  Trump supporters aren't the government.  They're citizens, excercising their rights.  That literally the antithesis of tyranny.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Guns aren't going to be banned or confiscated, that's nothing but rightwing demagoguery and lies.


/——-/ Your gun grabbing buddies already ratted you out. (WATCH) Democrats Openly Admit They Want to Confiscate Firearms in 'Common Use'


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 4, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Your gun grabbing buddies already ratted you out. (WATCH) Democrats Openly Admit They Want to Confiscate Firearms in 'Common Use'


He knows.   He chooses to lie.


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Trump didn't need to, Trump's cult was already going to attack the capitol and he never to them to go home, after his pity rally, he told them to go.




So....I guess the checks from the CCP cashed .........and here you are still pushing the Jan. 6 show trial....


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.


/——-/ (WATCH) Democrats Openly Admit They Want to Confiscate Firearms in 'Common Use'


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Perhaps you should reconsider how it is you frame an argument and what manner of information you include in that arguement.
> 
> I happen to read at a Graduate level.  You?  I have doubts.,


Further reading of the discussion brings into question of whether that graduate level you claim to read at is graduate school, high school, or 3rd grade.

I stated that five different states included language about the right to keep and bear arms in their ratification of "the Constitution".  I didn't say "their constitution" or "their constitutions" or "the constitutions".  Nobody with a GED could interpret the states ratifying "the Constitution" as their constitution. 

And how did you ever get the idea that I was suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms was other than a right of the people?  Here's what you said:




Darkwind said:


> The prefatory clause, as is agreed to by most legal scholars and linguists, is an explanation for the purpose of why government SHALL not infringe up the right of the people.


In the paragraph above, you tie the right to the militia.  You're the one wrong.  The right is NOT tied to the militia.  The militia is NOT the reason the right cannot be infringed.  That's the argument that the left uses, suggesting that the militia is no longer used so there's no longer a right.



Darkwind said:


> In every instance where the Bill of Rights speaks, the Amendments are either a restriction on government or an unassailable right OF THE PEOPLE.


Well, duh.  What I proved by using the original writings of those who drove the creation of the 2nd Amendment, is that the militia clause is NOT tied to the right to keep and bear arms.  The right to keep and bear arms is independent of the militia clause.  Therefore, I said, in fact I proved beyond doubt, exactly what you're yelling at me in the paragraph above.

So, my suggestion to you is to go back and study what I posted about the origins of the text of the 2nd Amendment, and use those graduate level reading skills.  And if you still can't understand what I wrote, consider returning your graduate degree and insisting on a refund.

And, while you're boasting about your graduate level reading skills, get some elementary level spelling skills; even with the spell check on your browser, you still can't spell "argument".  Normally, if the message is clear then who cares about the spelling or grammar but if you're going to brag about your graduate level language skills, then prove you have them.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

Darkwind said:


> Having college graduates work for you is proof of your intelligence?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...


Once again, you demonstrate that you must have gotten your graduate degree by mail order.  Quote where I said that the 2nd Amendment gives authority to the state to form militias or that militias are a requirement to keep and bear arms?  Your reading comprehension is completely high-school-dropout level.

And, even again, you prove your lack of reading comprehension skills.  I didn't say that having those with masters degrees working for me makes me smart.  What I said is that I know enough to know that their degree doesn't make them smart, just as you are proving that your degree doesn't make you smart.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumbfuck your word salad wasn't read. The second amendment has been weaken however gun owners are taking it back. I'm a gun rights activists you are not. I give thousands of dollars every year to groups like the second amendment foundation, FPC, Gun Owners of America. I am a life time member of the Second Amendment Foundation and the GOA.  I am also a paid subscriber to Armed American Radio. The three groups I mentioned are the ones that fight in court defending my rights. So who do you contribute too?


I donate a million dollars each year to each of the NRA and GOA.

Well, of course I don't do that but see how easy it is to type shit on the Internet about what a fighter I am for the right to keep and bear arms by donating money?  Your claims don't make you a warrior for the cause.

I already said I believe you like your guns.  You really believe you are fighting for the right to keep and bear arms.  That wasn't the challenge.  What started this is that you said that the unorganized militia cannot be federalized without the permission of the governor.  I just asked you to back that up by telling us where it says that. 

Of course you can't defend that statement by showing us anything in the Constitution that backs that up so, to defend your ignorance, you went on the attack, attempting to make the discussion about your attack on me instead of the fact that you were just ignorant on the Constitution.  

Ignorance is OK.  I'm ignorant on how to operate the tire changing machine at the tire shop.  I could learn it but I haven't.  You're ignorant on the Constitution but that's OK; you can learn it. 

But to learn the Constitution, you would have to quit responding to polite, honest, questions with rage and attack.  You could have taken my question as something to look up so you could try to prove me wrong.  Had you looked it up you would have learned something.  But you chose not to learn but to attack. 

And, of course you continue to make ignorant statements.  You suggest that because the National Guard was created in 1903 then the unorganized militia can't be federalized. 

Then you claim that the National Guard _*is*_ the militia.  Many have fallen for that lie but anyone trying to defend the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms must be wise enough to understand that is a lie.

Once again, I gave you the opportunity to learn had you researched to answer my question.  Nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to send the militia to foreign soil to fight wars or to combine the militia with the standing army.  Therefore, all of the claims to the contrary or not, the National Guard cannot be the militia.  The National Guard was created to convince suckers that the standing army is the militia.  But you can't back up your statement with the Constitution because your response to my reasonable, polite, question was, once again, to attack.  If you attack, you seem to think, then you need not back up your other claims with any documentation.

That's OK.  You can believe what you wish, you can say what you want.  But I'm  not going to pretend to agree with your ignorance and play that game that would make you a positive force in the fight to defend the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms.  To play along with weakness is to lose the war.  I have no intention of losing the war.  I'm not going to pretend you're right when you're not just to get along.  Not you, and not anyone else. 

If you want to be in the fight to save the country, at least do the work to understand what the fight is about: the Constitution of the United States of America.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> The constitution was written at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and was ratified through a series of state conventions held in 1787 and 1788.


Good Job!  A gold star for you: ⭐

Now, then, since the Pennsylvania militia was created in 1777, 10 years before, then the Pennsylvania militia existed when the militia members had their militia provide rifles in their possession and refused to turn them in for cleaning.  

I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong.  Will you now also admit that the militia members had militia owned rifles in their possession?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Similarly...
> You should be able to tell us the ownership and use of which "arms" are protected by the 2nd, which "arms" are not, and where the constituton draws the line.
> And you can't.
> You shall now prove me right, and you an idiot.


I don't have to show the line. You're the one that says there's a line and that some arms aren't protected.  You're the one that says only commonly used arms are protected.  You're the one that says the government can take any right they want, any and all of them.

It's very clear which arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment: all of them.  I don't need to give you a list of what is protected, you give us a list of what is not, gun controller.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 4, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I donate a million dollars each year to each of the NRA and GOA.


Now I know you're full of shit


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Guns aren't going to be banned or confiscated, that's nothing but rightwing demagoguery and lies.


No it's leftist demagoguery. And their end game.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 4, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now I know you're full of shit


Haha.. I was giving you some credit for just being ignorant.  Now you've gone full-leftist, taking my comment completely out of context.  

If you can't have an honest discussion then you can't call yourself a conservative.  You're not just ignorant, now you're a liar as well.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> How so?  Trump supporters aren't the government.  They're citizens, excercising their rights.  That literally the antithesis of tyranny.


Sure, nothing to see here.

Republican-held state legislatures have passed bills that give lawmakers more power over the vote by stripping secretaries of state of their power, asserting control over election boards and creating easier methods to overturn election results.
The bills, triggered by baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, threaten to politicize traditionally non-partisan election functions by giving Republicans more control over election systems.
 Republican state lawmakers have introduced at least 216 bills in 41 states to give legislatures more power over election systems.

Which means if their candidate lost, they just overturn the will of the people.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Good Job!  A gold star for you: ⭐
> 
> Now, then, since the Pennsylvania militia was created in 1777, 10 years before, then the Pennsylvania militia existed when the militia members had their militia provide rifles in their possession and refused to turn them in for cleaning.
> 
> I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong.  Will you now also admit that the militia members had militia owned rifles in their possession?


Yes, when on active duty.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, nothing to see here.
> 
> Republican-held state legislatures have passed bills that give lawmakers more power over the vote by stripping secretaries of state of their power, asserting control over election boards and creating easier methods to overturn election results.
> The bills, triggered by baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, threaten to politicize traditionally non-partisan election functions by giving Republicans more control over election systems.
> ...


/——/ democrats pizzed that it’s now harder to steal elec.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So....I guess the checks from the CCP cashed


Did they?
I wouldn't doubt it.
Donnie is happy about that.

President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)May 13, 2018

Too many jobs in CHINA lost?

Trump did not mention in that tweet or its follow-ups that on Thursday, the developer of a theme park resort outside of Jakarta had signed a deal to receive as much as $500 million in Chinese government loans, as well as another $500 million from Chinese banks, according to Agence France-Presse.
Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, has a deal to license the Trump name to the resort, which includes a golf course and hotels.

Trump drops Chinese ZTE sanctions.............get's $1 billion in Chinese checks.


2aguy said:


> .........and here you are still pushing the Jan. 6 show trial....


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ democrats pizzed that it’s now harder to steal elec.


Sure, as republicans change election control from the people to the government?


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, nothing to see here.
> 
> Republican-held state legislatures have passed bills that give lawmakers more power over the vote by stripping secretaries of state of their power, asserting control over election boards and creating easier methods to overturn election results.
> The bills, triggered by baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, threaten to politicize traditionally non-partisan election functions by giving Republicans more control over election systems.
> ...


There's those damn Republican legislatures following that damn constitution thingie again.  The nerve of them.  The Courts want to put all the power into a job that's not even mentioned in the Constitution and those damn Republicans keep trying to interject the Constitution into the process.  Damn those Republicans.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> There's those damn Republican legislatures following that damn constitution thingie again.  The nerve of them.  The Courts want to put all the power into a job that's not even mentioned in the Constitution and those damn Republicans keep trying to interject the Constitution into the process.  Damn those Republicans.


Yeah, that damned constitution.
The document republicans love to violate.

12th Amendment of the Constitution
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.


So, the republican state legislators are even overturning the electors they chose.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Sure, nothing to see here.
> 
> Republican-held state legislatures have passed bills that give lawmakers more power over the vote by stripping secretaries of state of their power, asserting control over election boards and creating easier methods to overturn election results.
> The bills, triggered by baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, threaten to politicize traditionally non-partisan election functions by giving Republicans more control over election systems.
> ...


It's the Democrats who are pushing the national popular agenda, not the Republicans.  Do you support the national popular vote bills?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It's the Democrats who are pushing the national popular agenda, not the Republicans.  Do you support the national popular vote bills?


YES.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> YES.


So, you support going against the will of the people.  Great job of talking out of your ass.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> So, you support going against the will of the people.  Great job of talking out of your ass.


WTF? Dumbass.
Elections by popular vote *IS *the will of the people.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF? Dumbass.
> Elections by popular vote *IS *the will of the people.


If a state votes for a candidate and the state legislature gives the electoral votes to the candidate that got the least amount of votes, then that's going against the will of the people.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yeah, that damned constitution.
> The document republicans love to violate.
> 
> <snip>
> ...


Really?  Where did they do that?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> Yeah, that damned constitution.
> The document republicans love to violate.
> 
> 12th Amendment of the Constitution
> ...


And you support the national popular vote?...lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Haha.. I was giving you some credit for just being ignorant.  Now you've gone full-leftist, taking my comment completely out of context.
> 
> If you can't have an honest discussion then you can't call yourself a conservative.  You're not just ignorant, now you're a liar as well.


You're full of shit. I'm doing all in my power to bring back the second amendment to it's original form the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infridged.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If a state votes for a candidate and the state legislature gives the electoral votes to the candidate that got the least amount of votes, then that's going against the will of the people.


When the Union was founded, many States did not have elections for president.  There is no obligation for them to do so today.  Many state legislatures then, and could today, appointed the electors directly,

If the Secretary of State, the Governor, the Courts, or anyone else tampers with the Legislature approved election process then they certainly have the authority, and arguably the obligation, to appoint electors directly.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF? Dumbass.
> Elections by popular vote *IS *the will of the people.


It's not the will of all those people outside of the left coast and the upper east coast.  Those people would, if they could, dictate all laws and elections on to all of the other states in the middle.  All of those other states in the middle do not want an election by popular vote.

The Constitution was created very explicitly so that the States themselves elect the president, not the people - same thing with the Senate and the communists suckered the States into changing that.  That was a black day for the United States.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If a state votes for a candidate and the state legislature gives the electoral votes to the candidate that got the least amount of votes, then that's going against the will of the people.


That's what republicans want to do.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're full of shit. I'm doing all in my power to bring back the second amendment to it's original form the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infridged.


I believe you.  You're not one of those who argues that the Courts can strip you of all your rights or that any gun not commonly in use can be banned. 

No offense, though, and none was intended when I first asked you these two questions: 

Where does it say that the unorganized militia cannot be federalized without the permission of the Governors?

Where does it say that the militia can be federalized for deployment on foreign soil?

At this point, I'm not looking for answers to those questions.  At this point, I'm hoping you'll look for answers to those questions in the Constitution - where the answers don't exist, so the authorities do not exist for the Federal government.

The reason I point out when conservatives misstate what's in the Constitution is because we have a very tough fight ahead of us.  The left is constantly trying to change the language, turn the Constitution into a living document, turn logic on its head, and convince Americans that the Constitution says that which it does not say.  If they will, with a straight face, tell you that a boy is a girl and a girl is a boy, then imagine how dishonest they will be about things not so obvious.

In order for us to succeed at the coming political fight, we need to be able to refute the lies of the left.  We need to understand what the Founders told us what the Constitution means and what was their intent.  

Where they were not, by today's understanding of 1787 language, completely clear or their other writings were not explicitly directed to a statement in the Constitution, then we must study not just their other writings but their use of the language, so we can best understand original intent.

When conservatives post things that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Constitution and original intent, it's important to point that out because if they don't understand original intent, truly understand it, not just be able to quote some article that says what it is, then they cannot defend against the verbal machinations of the left. 

In fact, not only will conservatives lose the arguments from the left, they'll succumb to the arguments of the left - just as you, and again, no offense intended, have fallen for the argument that the National Guard is the militia; an argument totally intended to dismantle your right to keep and  bear arms.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It's not the will of all those people outside of the left coast and the upper east coast.  Those people would, if they could, dictate all laws and elections on to all of the other states in the middle.


No, they couldn't.
Are all those state representatives spineless?
Only the republicans, when it comes to Trump.


woodwork201 said:


> All of those other states in the middle do not want an election by popular vote.


No, shit, because they would lose.


woodwork201 said:


> The Constitution was created very explicitly so that the States themselves elect the president, not the people


BS. 
The electors are chosen by the party at their state's party conventions.
During the general election your vote helps determine your State’s electors.  When you vote for a Presidential candidate, you aren’t actually voting for President.  You are telling your State which candidate you want your State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors. The winning candidate’s State political party selects the individuals who will be electors.
Hmm...............the "people"


woodwork201 said:


> - same thing with the Senate and the communists suckered the States into changing that.


Senators were once elected by the electoral college?
I don't think so.


woodwork201 said:


> That was a black day for the United States.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> That's what republicans want to do.


You just said it's what you support


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 5, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You just said it's what you support


I support a popular vote for president.
Republicans don't, they support the electoral college version.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> I support a popular vote for president.
> Republicans don't, they support the electoral college version.


You support the national vote first plan, which would go against the will of the people.


----------



## woodwork201 (Aug 5, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, they couldn't.
> Are all those state representatives spineless?
> Only the republicans, when it comes to Trump.
> 
> ...


The electors are chosen by the process created by the State Legislatures - except in the cases where in 2020 the Democrat Secretaries of State and the Courts violated the Constitution and selected delegates by processes not created by the Legislatures.


Smokin' OP said:


> Senators were once elected by the electoral college?
> I don't think so.


You're so dishonest, disingenuous, it's just bizarre.  We weren't talking about the election of the President by the electoral college, we were talking about the appointment of the delegates to the electoral college.  You twist and lie in an attempt to create doubt for future readers.

Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures or by processes created by State Legislatures.   The Senate represented the States, the House represented the people.

You really need to study the Connecticut Compromise that broke a deadlock between the Virginia and the New Jersey plans that nearly prevented the creation of our Constitution until the compromise left the Senate appointed by the State Legislatures.  

Many small states, including the now giant New York, would not have joined the Union without that and, yet, the progressives found a way to strip it out of the Constitution after the fact.  The amazing thing is that the small state legislatures actually agreed to having their power stripped.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're the one that says there's a line and that some arms aren't protected.


And you, Scotsman,  agree.
So, where is the line in the constitution between what weapons are protected and what weapons are not?
How do you know?


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> You support the national vote first plan, which would go against the will of the people.


WTF is the "vote first" plan?
I support the popular vote for president, idiot.

If it's good enough for county commissioners to congresspeople, then it's good enough for president.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The electors are chosen by the process created by the State Legislatures - except in the cases where in 2020 the Democrat Secretaries of State and the Courts violated the Constitution and selected delegates by processes not created by the Legislatures.


"Processes by state legislators".
Like what?



woodwork201 said:


> You're so dishonest, disingenuous, it's just bizarre.  We weren't talking about the election of the President by the electoral college, we were talking about the appointment of the delegates to the electoral college.  You twist and lie in an attempt to create doubt for future readers.


WTF?
I just posted how a delegate is appointed, at the party convention.


woodwork201 said:


> Prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures or by processes created by State Legislatures.   The Senate represented the States, the House represented the people.
> 
> You really need to study the Connecticut Compromise that broke a deadlock between the Virginia and the New Jersey plans that nearly prevented the creation of our Constitution until the compromise left the Senate appointed by the State Legislatures.
> 
> Many small states, including the now giant New York, would not have joined the Union without that and, yet, the progressives found a way to strip it out of the Constitution after the fact.  The amazing thing is that the small state legislatures actually agreed to having their power stripped.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..​
Thread starter2aguy


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF is the "vote first" plan?
> I support the popular vote for president, idiot.
> 
> If it's good enough for county commissioners to congresspeople, then it's good enough for president.


Change the Constitution, then.  Stop supporting laws that go against the will of the people.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Change the Constitution, then.  Stop supporting laws that go against the will of the people.


That would be republicans..............................gaslighting only works on gullible republicans and Russians, so you're barking up the wrong tree, "genius".


----------



## Meister (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF is the "vote first" plan?
> I support the popular vote for president, idiot.
> 
> If it's good enough for county commissioners to congresspeople, then it's good enough for president.


The Senators and Congressmanare elected in state elections, not national elections.
The Presidency is elected in a national election.
Every state gets to be represented, not just the most populated.
Big Difference, Smokin'


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> The Senators and Congressmanare elected in state elections, not national elections.
> The Presidency is elected in a national election.
> Big Difference, Smokin'


No, it isn't.
They post how many people voted for a presidential candidate anyway.
What is the "big" difference?


----------



## Meister (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No, it isn't.
> They post how many people voted for a presidential candidate anyway.
> What is the "big" difference?


I've already told you what the difference is.
I've even told you the reason why for the electorate.

We don't have mob rule, we have a  representative democracy.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> I've already told you what the difference is.


NO, you didn't.


Meister said:


> I've even told you the reason why for the electorate.


Yeah, I got that.


Meister said:


> We don't have mob rule, we have a  representative democracy.


Yes, we do.
The mob being republicans.

Since 1988, Republicans won the presidential popular vote just once. It’s twice if you include 1988. That’s over 28 years!
During a span of 32 years from 1988 to 2020, Republicans and Democrats will have split White House occupancy 50/50, even though Republicans only won the popular vote twice (1988, 2004), while Democrats won the popular vote FIVE times (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012).


----------



## Meister (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> NO, you didn't.
> 
> Yeah, I got that.
> 
> ...


Like I said, we don't have mob rule. Every state gets to be represented in the national election.
sheesh, it's not that difficult, smokin'


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> Like I said, we don't have mob rule. Every state gets to be represented in the national election.
> sheesh, it's not that difficult, smokin'


No shit and they do get "representation".
How do you figure they wouldn't in a popular vote?
They have their elected state representatives.
Just as always.

Sheesh, it's not that difficult.


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?
> 
> Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?
> 
> ...


I am SO SICK of the PARANOIA here

Build a DAMN bunker


----------



## flan327 (Aug 6, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And you, Scotsman,  agree.
> So, where is the line in the constitution between what weapons are protected and what weapons are not?
> How do you know?


There is none


----------



## Meister (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> No shit and they do get "representation".
> How do you figure they wouldn't in a popular vote?
> They have their elected state representatives.
> Just as always.
> ...


 You keep going with the mob rule, dude.
You know....two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

It really isn't that difficult, and you are no where near as smart as the dumbest of the Founding Fathers.


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 6, 2022)

Meister said:


> You keep going with the mob rule, dude.
> You know....two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.


WTF does that have to do with..................ANYTHING?
Everyone already knows that............or they should.


Meister said:


> It really isn't that difficult,


NO shit.
But you can't explain the "BIG difference"?


Meister said:


> and you are no where near as smart as the dumbest of the Founding Fathers.


Sure.
Out of 195 countries in the world.
Only 11, elect their leaders, not all for their president, in an "electoral college' but similar, vote.
Burma.
Burundi.
Estonia.
India.
Madagascar
Nepal.
Pakistan.
Trinidad.
Tobago.
Vanuatu.
Vatican city.

The 12th being the US.

535 "Electors" deciding for 335 million people?
Yeah, THAT makes sense.

We should transfer the same with governors, with counties having "delegates".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF does that have to do with..................ANYTHING?
> Everyone already knows that............or they should.
> 
> NO shit.
> ...


 By your standard only California New York Texas and Florida would have a say in electing a president.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> That would be republicans..............................gaslighting only works on gullible republicans and Russians, so you're barking up the wrong tree, "genius".


No, you're the one that supports the national vote first plan.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 6, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> WTF does that have to do with..................ANYTHING?
> Everyone already knows that............or they should.
> 
> NO shit.
> ...


It makes as much sense as having a Congress.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 7, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No, you're the one that supports the national vote first plan.


The 4 largest states voter turnout wasn't even in the top 30 states








						Infographic: 2020 Election: Which States Had The Highest Turnout?
					

This chart show the estimated voting-eligible population turnout by state*




					www.statista.com


----------



## Smokin' OP (Aug 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> By your standard only California New York Texas and Florida would have a say in electing a president.


How do you figure that?
The electoral college electors are proportional to its population.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 7, 2022)

Smokin' OP said:


> How do you figure that?
> The electoral college electors are proportional to its population.


You're the one bitching about the electoral college. Without that only the top 4 states would have a say in the election of a president. And the top most populated states voter turn out with the exception of Florida doesn't rank above 30.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I don't have to show the line. You're the one that says there's a line and that some arms aren't protected.


And you, Scotsman,  agree.
So, where is the line in the constitution between what weapons are protected and what weapons are not?
How do you know?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> If you think you know the Constitution and if you think you defend it, if you think you truly defend the right to keep and bear arms or any other protected right, then you should be able to back up any claim supporting any government power or authority with a reference to where in the Constitution that power comes.


Similarly... You should be able to tell us the ownership and use of which "arms" are protected by the 2nd, which "arms" are not, and where the constitution draws the line. And you can't. 
You shall now prove me right, and you an idiot.


----------

