"A Well Regulated Militia" explained

[Sixties Fan]

and if all 3 are compromised??

if youve been paying attention the government quit functioning legally a long time ago,,

Under which administration?

 

[Natural Citizen]

This thread is about Militias.

Not about any person in the US being legally allowed to buy and keep weapons.

While you may certainly prefer discussion be limited to your personal interest or otherwise minimal scope of understanding of it, be assured that the terms of controversy are much, much broader than the limitation you've placed on yourself.

Because you choose to limit the terms of controversy to your own capacity or level of give a damn, does not mean that others will conform to limiting/trivializing the discussion in scope.

 

[meaner gene]

and if all 3 are compromised??

if youve been paying attention the government quit functioning legally a long time ago,,

What do you mean by compromised. As I said, if it rises up to the level as explained in the declaration of independence, can insurrection against that government be supported.

Read the declaration of independence in it's entirety, It lists the particulars that in sum total proves the governments oppression of the people to rise to the level to support insurrection.

 

[Sixties Fan]

really?? you need that explained too??



theyre called the democrat and republic parties,,

Which post are you responding to?

 

[Flash]

AGAIN:

YOU have the right to bear arms.

The Government is NOT infringing in any of your rights, NONE, to buy and keep your weapons.

You have the confederate flag because you think like a confederate. Backwards.

AGAIN: You and other Americans have the right to buy and keep weapons as per the 2nd Amendment.


I have not said ANYTHING different from that.

The filthy ass Libtards do not understand what "shall not be infringed means". That is very confusing to you dumbasses.

For instance, those shithead Democrats in DC had the same mindset as this Fuentes clown and said that Dick Heller had no right to keep a firearm in his own home You know, because he was not in a "well regulated militia" or whatever. The Democrat filth did not recognize his individual right to keep and bear arms. Justice Scalia told them to shove that where the sun don't shine. The individual right to keep and bear arms is not connected to anything. Militia or otherwise. I shit you not Moon Bat. Go look it up.

You Moon Bat assholes hate the right to keep and bear arms. The real reason is that you want this country to be a Socialist Shithole and that like all Leftest Revioluninaries you want to take away the ability of the people to resist Leftest oppression. That is the real reason this Fuentes says in video that citizens should not be allowed to own AR-15s unless it is given to them by the fucking government or whatever.

 

[meaner gene]

While you may certainly prefer discussion be limited to your personal interest or otherwise minimal scope of understanding of it, be assured that the terms of controversy are much, much broader than the limitiation you've placed on yourself.

If you read Lincolns Gettysburg address, you can discuss how long a "score" is, without arguing the origins of the civil war.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you read Lincolns Gettysburg address, you can discuss how long a "score" is, without arguing the origins of the civil war.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't thump his little bottom blue on the rocks.

As I said, the terms of controversy in this discussion are broad.

Much broader, much more complex than the trivial benchmark the OP is trying to establish in his effort to promote centralized government.

You're certainly free to conform to those trivial terms of controversy.

But if you think the rest of us will be so accommodating, you clearly had too much to dream last night.

 

[meaner gene]

The filthy ass Libtards do not understand what "shall not be infringed means". That is very confusing to you dumbasses.

Virtually every right within the constitution can be seen as being without limit, yet time after time, the supreme court has upheld limits to those "shall not be infringed" rights.
No amendment or article has ever been interpreted as being absolute, because of the text on it's face.

Grow up. You act like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum because his parents took away his toy because he was bad.

 

[meaner gene]

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't thump his little bottom blue on the rocks.

Yet instead of discussing the meaning of militia, since there are examples in Article 1 sections 15, 16 of it's meaning.

And neither have any plausible interpretation as a militia being anything but an act of government.

 

[AMart]

Only Congress can arm the Army or Militias.

Where in the constitution does it say that it is illegal for the people to create a militia? It says congress can create militias but it does not ban citizens from doing the same.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The filthy ass Libtards do not understand what "shall not be infringed means". That is very confusing to you dumbasses.

For instance, those shithead Democrats in DC had the same mindset as this Fuentes clown and said that Dick Heller had no right to keep a firearm in his own home You know, because he was not in a "well regulated militia" or whatever. The Democrat filth did not recognize his individual right to keep and bear arms. Justice Scalia told them to shove that where the sun don't shine. The individual right to keep and bear arms is not connected to anything. Militia or otherwise. I shit you not Moon Bat. Go look it up.

You Moon Bat assholes hate the right to keep and bear arms. The real reason is that you want this country to be a Socialist Shithole and that like all Leftest Revioluninaries you want to take away the ability of the people to resist Leftest oppression. That is the real reason this Fuentes says in video that citizens should not be allowed to own AR-15s unless it is given to them by the fucking government or whatever.

Why is DC vs Heller important?


In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the laws, definitively finding that that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home.

District of Columbia v. Heller | Legal Momentum

www.legalmomentum.org

---------------

What is your point?
He had the right to buy a gun.

 

[progressive hunter]

You keep trying to make it about the the right of any individual to buy weapons, being taken by the government.

Not what the thread is about.

thats what the guy in the video was trying to make it about,, and even you tried,,

 

[meaner gene]

Where in the constitution does it say that it is illegal for the people to create a militia? It says congress can create militias but it does not ban citizens from doing the same.

Kiss created an army. But not as defined in the constitution.

 

[progressive hunter]

Under which administration?

you have a reading problem dont you,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

What do you mean by compromised. As I said, if it rises up to the level as explained in the declaration of independence, can insurrection against that government be supported.

Read the declaration of independence in it's entirety, It lists the particulars that in sum total proves the governments oppression of the people to rise to the level to support insurrection.

it wouldnt be an insurrection,, it would be a restoration,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Which post are you responding to?

you really need to get help with your reading problem,,

 

[meaner gene]

it wouldnt be an insurrection,, it would be a restoration,,

Even our forefathers recognized they were bringing forth an insurrection against the government.

We Must Hang Together Or Surely We Shall Hang Separately

On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress agreed upon the content of the Declaration of Independence. Two days later, on July 4, the document was signed

 

[Sixties Fan]

you have a reading problem dont you,,,

Did you post which administration? No. You said something else.

I ask again, which administration started to worry you about where the US was heading?

 

[Sixties Fan]

you really need to get help with your reading problem,,

You did not click on Reply.

Again, which post of mine were you responding to?

 

[meaner gene]

You did not click on Reply.

Again, which post of mine were you responding to?

He thinks because the congress and the courts turned down Trumps quest to hold onto the presidency, that represents a breakdown of government. Hence supporting an insurrection.