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.
/-----/ "Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd."America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd.
Till then you are not free to just ignore it like it is not there.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Because it's impossible to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.
View attachment 252111
Which, of course, even if true, has no impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...
When it comes to the Constitution there is no such thing as "Compromise" and "Consensus".
Your link is demonstrably and proven false.The military is not socialist.America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
The second amendment is a protection for individual rights not a militia
Yes, it is.
1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
Nothing - you can amend the constitutional at any time you have enough support.Sorry to break the news to you but the US Constitution is dead...
The last change made to it was in 1992 and it was minor... The Constitution is not moving with the times...
Do you think we should write laws today that can never be changed in the future... What is wrong with the people living today making laws from themselves..
so you're ok with them being used in country? you seem to be thinking they can be deployed in our own country. They can't. So militiamen are in country volunteers.America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
/------/ Actually your point was a slow rolling bunt I scooped up. My post was directed towards the gun grabbers and their agenda to repeal the 2nd./-----/ "Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd."America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd.
Till then you are not free to just ignore it like it is not there.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Because it's impossible to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.
View attachment 252111
Zoooommmm
That sound you hear is the point flying far above your head.
We have a process for amending the Constitution, if someone does not think a part is still valid today, that is their recourse. To just ignore the part you do not like is not acceptable
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
This is how it started with tobacco.
/------/ Actually your point was a slow rolling bunt I scooped up. My post was directed towards the gun grabbers and their agenda to repeal the 2nd./-----/ "Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd."America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
Then you should work to get rid of the 2nd.
Till then you are not free to just ignore it like it is not there.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Because it's impossible to fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.
View attachment 252111
Zoooommmm
That sound you hear is the point flying far above your head.
We have a process for amending the Constitution, if someone does not think a part is still valid today, that is their recourse. To just ignore the part you do not like is not acceptable
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
That's not socialism fruit loops.The military is not socialist.America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
The second amendment is a protection for individual rights not a militia
Yes, it is.
1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
Shut up commie......try it....you'll see the end of a gunHardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...
It should not move with the times.Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...
When it comes to the Constitution there is no such thing as "Compromise" and "Consensus".
Sorry to break the news to you but the US Constitution is dead...
The last change made to it was in 1992 and it was minor... The Constitution is not moving with the times...
Do you think we should write laws today that can never be changed in the future... What is wrong with the people living today making laws from themselves..
America has a strong (socialist) standing army. There is no longer need for "militia" as stated in the Second Amendment.
You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms has two purposes: (1) to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with the rights of States and (2) to grant each citizen the use of a firearm for self protection and other lawful purposes, completely unrelated to service in the Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide. Anyone who is unaware of the SCOTUS decision needs to find different news sources. People read the Drudge Report know better.
By Dennis A. Henigan
The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.
First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.
Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.
Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."
The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.
Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.
Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.
There is too much at stake to be silent.
More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns
