Congressman: U.S. is heading towards a second civil war

[RetiredGySgt]

Only well regulated militia of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Which became null and void as of the 1917 National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment hasn't kept up with the rest of the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. The 2nd amendment needs to be updated to keep it current.

Again for the slow and stupid there is no requirement for militia service to exercise your 2nd amendment right. The English language is not your friend when you make that ignorant claim.

In Law, if any part of a law is proven to be false then the whole law shall be thrown out. And the first two thirds of the 2nd amendment has been superceded making the whole thing null and void. We need it updated to keep it current. Otherwise, the many and various interpretations that we see today will continue. Most are half baked. We need to tighten up the law.

The first part of the 2nd amendment does NOT declare that ONLY militias are the reason for the 2nd you loon, learn how the English language works.

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

That pretty well ties the well regulated Militia to the State. Due to the need to call up the States National Guards for WWI in 1917 the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed that changed things. I suggest you research the National Guard Act before you keep blundering on. The first half of the 2nd amendment became null and void at that point due to the funding and training of the National Guard now being done by the Federal Government. Plus, the new weapons of war, no State or even Groups of States could come up with the money to come even close to going up against the Federal Government anymore. They also threw out the 75,000 maximum Standing Army rule for the Feds. The first line in the 2nd amendment worked okay but became more and more out of touch starting in 1850 as the weapons of war got more and more deadly and expensive. Even the last line becomes a bit vague as well. If you are saying that you want the 2nd amendment to say that you want to be armed with small arms to protect your home and family, rewrite it to read that way. Otherwise, it's to vague.

Look RETARD the first part of the amendment is not actually important as per the English language FURTHER the National Guard is just the federalized portion of the Militia, each State is Free to form their own militia separate from the National Guard in fact in North Carolina they have a State run Militia.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Which became null and void as of the 1917 National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment hasn't kept up with the rest of the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. The 2nd amendment needs to be updated to keep it current.

Again for the slow and stupid there is no requirement for militia service to exercise your 2nd amendment right. The English language is not your friend when you make that ignorant claim.

In Law, if any part of a law is proven to be false then the whole law shall be thrown out. And the first two thirds of the 2nd amendment has been superceded making the whole thing null and void. We need it updated to keep it current. Otherwise, the many and various interpretations that we see today will continue. Most are half baked. We need to tighten up the law.

The first part of the 2nd amendment does NOT declare that ONLY militias are the reason for the 2nd you loon, learn how the English language works.

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

That pretty well ties the well regulated Militia to the State. Due to the need to call up the States National Guards for WWI in 1917 the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed that changed things. I suggest you research the National Guard Act before you keep blundering on. The first half of the 2nd amendment became null and void at that point due to the funding and training of the National Guard now being done by the Federal Government. Plus, the new weapons of war, no State or even Groups of States could come up with the money to come even close to going up against the Federal Government anymore. They also threw out the 75,000 maximum Standing Army rule for the Feds. The first line in the 2nd amendment worked okay but became more and more out of touch starting in 1850 as the weapons of war got more and more deadly and expensive. Even the last line becomes a bit vague as well. If you are saying that you want the 2nd amendment to say that you want to be armed with small arms to protect your home and family, rewrite it to read that way. Otherwise, it's to vague.

"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 above sentence is an array of phrases, each phrase save for the second receiving the action of the last phrase, which is a verb phrase. The first phrase is part of a list, same as the third phrase. Second phrase modifies and describes the first phrase only.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is not described by "being necessary to the security of a free State"

Semitic Second Amendment arguments are political. The meaning is clear as written.

Is it me or are some people LARPING Americans around here?

The problem is, it's not clear. When the first part became superceded in 1917, it meant the 2nd amendment needed to be rewritten. When the weapons of war outgrew anything that the private citizen in their right mind would have in their home, the last third became outmoded. The only part that still is valid is the part about the right to keep and bear arms.

We get into the part where we need to define what a well regulated Militia for the security of the State is. The original reason for that was to protect against the Federal Government from going rogue. There was also written in the maximum number of Military of 75,000 for the Feds. This held until the US removed that for WWI and also passed the National Guard Act of 1917. The Military also came up with the UCMJ that prevented the President from using Federal Troops inside the US without the express permission of the Congress. The fear of a President from becoming King was pretty well gone. And that was what the first line or thought of the 2nd amendment was all about.

The next line or thought is the right to bear arms. I don't see anything in that that has changed. We do have the right to bear arms. Now on to the last line or thought.

The last line or thought is "Shall Not be Infringed". This gets a bit testy. When weapons of War outgrew sanity this really went out the window. Maybe we need to add something to it like "Shall Not be Infringed Within Reason". Do we have a right to own Nuclear Weapons? How about Bunker Busters. Or maybe a nice B-2. Or I always wanted a fully functional Abrams with all the ammo it can hold on my front lawn. And who makes the determination on what is "Within Reason". We have to have laws that make that determination.

So the 2nd amendment needs to be updated. It really needed to be undated sometime after 1850 when the Walker Colt was first introduced. And updated over and over as the weapons of war got more insane.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Which became null and void as of the 1917 National Guard Act. The 2nd amendment hasn't kept up with the rest of the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. The 2nd amendment needs to be updated to keep it current.

Again for the slow and stupid there is no requirement for militia service to exercise your 2nd amendment right. The English language is not your friend when you make that ignorant claim.

In Law, if any part of a law is proven to be false then the whole law shall be thrown out. And the first two thirds of the 2nd amendment has been superceded making the whole thing null and void. We need it updated to keep it current. Otherwise, the many and various interpretations that we see today will continue. Most are half baked. We need to tighten up the law.

The first part of the 2nd amendment does NOT declare that ONLY militias are the reason for the 2nd you loon, learn how the English language works.

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

That pretty well ties the well regulated Militia to the State. Due to the need to call up the States National Guards for WWI in 1917 the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed that changed things. I suggest you research the National Guard Act before you keep blundering on. The first half of the 2nd amendment became null and void at that point due to the funding and training of the National Guard now being done by the Federal Government. Plus, the new weapons of war, no State or even Groups of States could come up with the money to come even close to going up against the Federal Government anymore. They also threw out the 75,000 maximum Standing Army rule for the Feds. The first line in the 2nd amendment worked okay but became more and more out of touch starting in 1850 as the weapons of war got more and more deadly and expensive. Even the last line becomes a bit vague as well. If you are saying that you want the 2nd amendment to say that you want to be armed with small arms to protect your home and family, rewrite it to read that way. Otherwise, it's to vague.

Look RETARD the first part of the amendment is not actually important as per the English language FURTHER the National Guard is just the federalized portion of the Militia, each State is Free to form their own militia separate from the National Guard in fact in North Carolina they have a State run Militia.

And how long would the NC State Militia last against the Federal Military? And Hour, an Afternoon, A Day, Maybe a Week? The intent of the first line or thought of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the President from declaring himself King and militarily taking over the US and making everyone his subject. You use insults but you can't change facts and history.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again for the slow and stupid there is no requirement for militia service to exercise your 2nd amendment right. The English language is not your friend when you make that ignorant claim.

In Law, if any part of a law is proven to be false then the whole law shall be thrown out. And the first two thirds of the 2nd amendment has been superceded making the whole thing null and void. We need it updated to keep it current. Otherwise, the many and various interpretations that we see today will continue. Most are half baked. We need to tighten up the law.

The first part of the 2nd amendment does NOT declare that ONLY militias are the reason for the 2nd you loon, learn how the English language works.

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

That pretty well ties the well regulated Militia to the State. Due to the need to call up the States National Guards for WWI in 1917 the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed that changed things. I suggest you research the National Guard Act before you keep blundering on. The first half of the 2nd amendment became null and void at that point due to the funding and training of the National Guard now being done by the Federal Government. Plus, the new weapons of war, no State or even Groups of States could come up with the money to come even close to going up against the Federal Government anymore. They also threw out the 75,000 maximum Standing Army rule for the Feds. The first line in the 2nd amendment worked okay but became more and more out of touch starting in 1850 as the weapons of war got more and more deadly and expensive. Even the last line becomes a bit vague as well. If you are saying that you want the 2nd amendment to say that you want to be armed with small arms to protect your home and family, rewrite it to read that way. Otherwise, it's to vague.

Look RETARD the first part of the amendment is not actually important as per the English language FURTHER the National Guard is just the federalized portion of the Militia, each State is Free to form their own militia separate from the National Guard in fact in North Carolina they have a State run Militia.

And how long would the NC State Militia last against the Federal Military? And Hour, an Afternoon, A Day, Maybe a Week? The intent of the first line or thought of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the President from declaring himself King and militarily taking over the US and making everyone his subject. You use insults but you can't change facts and history.

You stil don't know how the English language works the first two ;parts are not controlling they hve no meaning to controlling portion they are simply one of what could be endless reasons to have the right to keep and bear arms, and again Each State is Free to form their own militia all the national guard is is the federalized portion of a states population.

 

[hazlnut]

Congressman: U.S. is Heading Towards a Second Civil War

Republican Congressman Steve King warns that America is heading towards a second civil war as a result of the increasingly polarized political environment gripping the country.

“America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Ft. Sumter,” tweeted King, with a link to an article about how “Occupy” protesters shut down an ICE office in Portland, Oregon.

Harpers Ferry is a reference to the Battle of Harpers Ferry, when Gen.
------------------------------------

The warnings keep coming but the sheep just keep plowing along like stoned idiots. They are going to get just what htey want and then live their biggest reality in regret when they realize what fkn morons they are and have been.

It's comingg and ppl are sick of you TRUMP HATING ASSHOLES...

The best part is it's all coming from political figures making the claims not some blogger sitting in their living room.

Steve King is bigoted idiot not fit to serve.

His district should have flushed that turd 5 cycles ago.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Congressman: U.S. is Heading Towards a Second Civil War

Republican Congressman Steve King warns that America is heading towards a second civil war as a result of the increasingly polarized political environment gripping the country.

“America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Ft. Sumter,” tweeted King, with a link to an article about how “Occupy” protesters shut down an ICE office in Portland, Oregon.

Harpers Ferry is a reference to the Battle of Harpers Ferry, when Gen.
------------------------------------

The warnings keep coming but the sheep just keep plowing along like stoned idiots. They are going to get just what htey want and then live their biggest reality in regret when they realize what fkn morons they are and have been.

It's comingg and ppl are sick of you TRUMP HATING ASSHOLES...

The best part is it's all coming from political figures making the claims not some blogger sitting in their living room.

Steve King is bigoted idiot not fit to serve.

His district should have flushed that turd 5 cycles ago.

He's also the idiot who got on the floor of Congress and talked about Boehner's "mendacity", and how he was the "most mendacious person I know".

Mendacity by the way is another word for lying, so basically he spent a bunch of time giving a speech about how big a liar Boehner was. If you go to the link, you can also see the video.

Rep. Steve King Boasts Of GOP Leaders' 'Mendacity'

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) literally accused the Republican leadership of the House of being a bunch of big old liars on the floor of the House last night. But that isn’t exactly what he meant.

During a rant on the floor of the House about health care, King used the word “mendacity” — meaning untruthfulness — where he likely meant the opposite.“As I deliberate and I listen to the gentleman from Tennessee, I have to make the point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader or another member, there is an opportunity to rise to a point of order, there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman’s words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and I would make the point that the leader and the speaker have established their integrity and their mendacity for years in this Congress and I don’t believe it can be effectively challenged and those who do so actually cast aspersions on themselves by making wild accusations,” King said.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In Law, if any part of a law is proven to be false then the whole law shall be thrown out. And the first two thirds of the 2nd amendment has been superceded making the whole thing null and void. We need it updated to keep it current. Otherwise, the many and various interpretations that we see today will continue. Most are half baked. We need to tighten up the law.

The first part of the 2nd amendment does NOT declare that ONLY militias are the reason for the 2nd you loon, learn how the English language works.

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

That pretty well ties the well regulated Militia to the State. Due to the need to call up the States National Guards for WWI in 1917 the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed that changed things. I suggest you research the National Guard Act before you keep blundering on. The first half of the 2nd amendment became null and void at that point due to the funding and training of the National Guard now being done by the Federal Government. Plus, the new weapons of war, no State or even Groups of States could come up with the money to come even close to going up against the Federal Government anymore. They also threw out the 75,000 maximum Standing Army rule for the Feds. The first line in the 2nd amendment worked okay but became more and more out of touch starting in 1850 as the weapons of war got more and more deadly and expensive. Even the last line becomes a bit vague as well. If you are saying that you want the 2nd amendment to say that you want to be armed with small arms to protect your home and family, rewrite it to read that way. Otherwise, it's to vague.

Look RETARD the first part of the amendment is not actually important as per the English language FURTHER the National Guard is just the federalized portion of the Militia, each State is Free to form their own militia separate from the National Guard in fact in North Carolina they have a State run Militia.

And how long would the NC State Militia last against the Federal Military? And Hour, an Afternoon, A Day, Maybe a Week? The intent of the first line or thought of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the President from declaring himself King and militarily taking over the US and making everyone his subject. You use insults but you can't change facts and history.

You stil don't know how the English language works the first two ;parts are not controlling they hve no meaning to controlling portion they are simply one of what could be endless reasons to have the right to keep and bear arms, and again Each State is Free to form their own militia all the national guard is is the federalized portion of a states population.

Funny you should mention that. My minor was English Lit. My Major was Business. I see it as a jumble that was good for the exact time in history it was written. It worked for almost 100 years. But the weapons outgrew the wording. Before and after the Revolutionary war, it was permissible and often to see a canon in the front veranda of a rich persons estate. He was proud he owned a canon. He owned small arms as well to arm his staff (just not his slaves). Before the war, the small arms were more for the defense of his plantation and the putting down any uprising of his slaves than anything else. The Canon was status symbol only. But in the event of an Indian Attack, the canon was one hell of an equalizer. During the war, if the Brits didn't comendeer the arms and canon and his sympathies were for the rebellion, he turned them over to the Colonials. He expected to be compensated afterwards if they weren't returned in good shape. The Arms were his way of continuing the safety and security of his livelihood. And he didn't want the Federal Government coming in an taking them. Hence, the second amendment. The weapons that were used for the Revolutionary war, and all wars until the Civil War were the same as used to protect the Plantations. But the Civil War introduced new technology that surpassed anything that could even be remotely used for plantation defense. I won't go into what those were. You need to study up on them. If you are into weapon history, it's fascinating. But we outgrew the right to bear arms with no restrictions.

By the time WWI came along, even the Well Regulated Militia became outdated because of the scale of wars. People thought the Civil War losses were bad (and they were) but WWI were in the millions. And the newly introduced weapons were brutal and very efficient. It took them until 1934 to finally start putting an end to wholesale slaughter on the civilian streets by passing the 1934 Firearms Laws. And then it took about 10 years for those laws to completely get the higher classes of weapons off the streets. Those laws still stand today. But if we used your way of thinking, they would be counted as unconstitutional. Public Safety came first and foremost. It became implied that you had a right to bear arms "Within Reason" but it appears that the "Within Reason" has been forgotten.