Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
they did do an insurrection,, but in our case its not,, its a restoration,, well unless its antifa or the democrats doing it because they want to burn down the old and put their system in place,,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
this is your theme song isnt it,,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?
Are you so dense I have to spell it out for you?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.
hit the little arrow next to my name and it will take you to it,,You did not click on Reply.
Again, which post of mine were you responding to?
That claim is not supported by the constitution.Right. But only Congress can create and regulate those Militias, set up to fight back against Foreign Invaders.
I did not propose that. The founders did. That was a few years after they had done exactly that. They wanted to make sure future Generations could do the same if the government they created became a monster and needed to be done away with.What you are proposing is that any people who do not like their government can create Militias, arm themselves and revolt against that government.
Theoretically, quote one unquote could attempt to bring down a government that that one person disagrees with. Obviously that would fail.That is called An Insurrection. And if one simply disagrees with one government and wants to bring it down, it is a Coup.
We no longer need arms to protect our lives and property? Have you visited a blue run city, lately?People before the 20th century, needed arms to protect their lives and their property. It was not a matter of fighting a foreign government, as with the American Revolution.
I'm not sure if you mean do we need the National Guard. I would say yes, but it has been abused in the last couple of decades by being sent into the endless Wars along with regulars.Is there a need for non Congressionally approved Militias, like the National Guard, in present days?
He is not arguing against private militias. He's explaining the meaning / qualifications of a militia under the US Constitution.The dumb son of a bitch never heard of the unorganized militia. Nor did the stupid fucker comprehend the right to keep and bear arms part when the ignorant bastard said the government issues those weapons. But he's a dumb son of a bitch what would you expect?
please keep your TDS to yourself,, this isnt about trump and its not helpingHe 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.
And he's wrong.and ignorant for showing all.He is not arguing against private militias. He's explaining the meaning / qualifications of a militia under the US Constitution.
The irony of that statement is that the state government creates that states militia. And the state government is in charge of fair elections.The purpose of militias, among other things, is to be ready in case the government ends free speech and fair elections. That is tyranny, and subject to overthrow. By the people, thanks to their right to bear arms not being infringed.
You confuse the Texas National Guard, with the Texas state police force that Governor Abbott created, as an armed militia, that could no be federalized.My state, texas, has a Texas State guard which I believe has no funding from congress. Several other states do as well if I remember correctly. And of course we Texans make good use of our right as people to bear arms also. I would say the latter is definitely needed. I'm not sure about the state guard, but on paper it seems a good idea.
this is your theme song isnt it,,
you mean the one thats just like the other 28 states that have the same thing??You confuse the Texas National Guard, with the Texas state police force that Governor Abbott created, as an armed militia, that could no be federalized.
because it has nothing to do with my comment and I wont let you change the discussion just because youre losing,,Why can you not answer the question?
[You posted a stupid video of a Democrat moron ranting incoherently about how Americans don't really have the right to keep and bear arms unless it is connected to a "well regulated militia".]Are you so dense I have to spell it out for you?
You posted a stupid video of a Democrat moron ranting incoherently about how Americans don't really have the right to keep and bear arms unless it is connected to a "well regulated militia". The stupid sonofabitch even went so far as to say we Americans aren't allowed to have an AR-15 unless it it provided to us by the fucking government.
Meanwhile we had the same kind of confused Democrats in DC saying a citizen could not have a firearm in their own home. It took the Heller case to fix that.
We had the same kind of confused Democrats in Chicago that said a citizen could not carry a firearm for his own protection in the most crime ridden city in America. It took the McDonald case to fix that.
We had the same kind kind of confused Democrats say that a citizen in New York State can only carry a firearm if they get permission from the the fucking government. And the fucking government hardly ever gives permission. It took the Bruen case to fix that.
Your confusion and inability to understand what the hell you are talking about is really an embarrassment. You need to just shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about lest it makes you look like a bigger fool than you have already demonstrated.
Yes, which is clearly an argument against the idea that the national guard is the militia by which we maintain our freedom from government tyranny.The irony of that statement is that the state government creates that states militia. And the state government is in charge of fair elections.
In other words, you forgot which post of mine you were answering, and will not bother to check and answer again.because it has nothing to do with my comment and I wont let you change the discussion just because youre losing,,
no it isnt,,,In other words, you forgot which post of mine you were answering, and will not bother to check and answer again.
He is applying fundamental legal principles to the US Constitution. The first rule of contracts, which the Constitution is basically a contract with the people, you first look to the contract, to glean the meaning of the words it uses, by finding their meaning "in context" with the document in total.And he's wrong.and ignorant for showing all.
So, let me get back to what was being said:no it isnt,,,
really?? you need that explained too??What private organizations are you talking about?
