Matt Gaetz says gun are not hunting , their to take down the government.

[BlackSand]

Gaetz was right. When they wrote the constitution the states feared the power of a central federal government. And having overthrown one king, they wanted to preserve the power to do it again.

BUT....

That is why the 2nd amendment said that power rested in the state militias, the well regulated militias, that would be armed by the states, just like they were in the revolutionary war, and the 2nd amendment protected the rights of the states to arm themselves.

Gaetz just reversed the position the USSC took in Heller V DC which said it was an individual right, and Gaetz confirms it's a state right.

Interesting it takes a nut like Gaetz to say the supreme court was wrong on guns.

.

Incorrect ... The State can form, arm, and regulate a militia without violating an individual's rights.
Try Again ... Nutter.

.​

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yes, Matt is so right, the way this fucked up government is acting, the concerned citizens need to be ready for the take over of this country by the Socialists.

Ya mean like Jan 6...

Oh...

You mean when Trump supporters wandered the halls of the Capitol, took selfies and talked to the cops....while Antifa and blm violently attacked the cops and vandalized the building?

These were the Trump supporters.....caught on camera....

“Some say the riots were caused by antifa. There is absolutely no evidence of that,” McCarthy said. “Conservatives should be the first to say so.”

Even McCarthy said so.

McCarthy says Trump ‘bears responsibility’ for Capitol riot

The House GOP leader makes clear he does not support impeachment, even as he publicly rebuked the president.

www.politico.com

We were also told that the Capitol police officer was beaten to death by Trump supporters with a fire extinguisher.......he believed the information on that too.....until the 2nd impeachment was over and they then told the truth....

Just like the lie about the death of the police officer, I am telling you now, we are eventually going to find out that the violent attackers at the Capitol were antifa and blm hiding among the Trump crowd......the democrats are hiding that fact....

The man has a stroke after the capital Jan 6th insurrection by the right wing violent crowd.

Wow, the man had a stroke, but you like the good little progressive slave, carry the water for your prog leaders.....

 

[Auld Phart]

“The Second Amendment – this is a little history lesson for all the fake news media. The Second Amendment is not about, it’s not about hunting, it’s not about recreation, it’s not about sports,” the 39-year-old went on. “The Second Amendment is about maintaining, within the citizenry, the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that becomes necessary. I hope it never does, but it sure is important to recognize the founding principles of this nation, and to make sure that they are fully understood.”

Gaetz was right. When they wrote the constitution the states feared the power of a central federal government. And having overthrown one king, they wanted to preserve the power to do it again.

BUT....

That is why the 2nd amendment said that power rested in the state militias, the well regulated militias, that would be armed by the states, just like they were in the revolutionary war, and the 2nd amendment protected the rights of the states to arm themselves.

Gaetz just reversed the position the USSC took in Heller V DC which said it was an individual right, and Gaetz confirms it's a state right.

Interesting it takes a nut like Gaetz to say the supreme court was wrong on guns.

That is why the 2nd amendment said that power rested in the state militias, the well regulated militias,

No, the 2nd says the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, NOT the militia.

 

[Canon Shooter]

List of militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a list of militias in the US, see if you can find any Democratic ones.

.

The desire to disarm the People, and take away their ability to fight back ... Is precisely why the actual fighting part started in the American Revolution.
There were Colonists that joined with the British Government and fought against the what would become the Americans.
There were Colonists that decided to join the fight against the British Government.

At the beginning of the American Revolution, only about 15% of the Colonists supported the idea of taking the fight to the British Government.
There were only around 30% of the Colonists that supported what their fellow Colonists wanted when the Revolution started.

It's wasn't about Democrats or Republicans ... It was about protecting your Liberties from the Government.
And it didn't have a damn thing to do with hunting.

.​

The men has guns because they were hunters.

"The men has guns"?

I bet you get to run the shake machine, don't you?

 

[meaner gene]

They should use these, the day the Constitution was ratified. The rifles today are not for the civilians.

Rifles​

Another type of weapon was the American long rifle. Many legends surround the American long rifle in the Revolution.

At the time, the rifle wasn't a very practical weapon of war. It was the weapon of guerrillas not of soldiers.
So at the time, the rifle was purely a hunting weapon. A musket was the weapon of war as it swapped accuracy in favor of firepower.

 

[meaner gene]

Gaetz was right. When they wrote the constitution the states feared the power of a central federal government. And having overthrown one king, they wanted to preserve the power to do it again.

.

Incorrect ... The State can form, arm, and regulate a militia without violating an individual's rights.
Try Again ... Nutter.

.​

Gaetz explained the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was a right of the people, but a right through the local elected government, who was in charge of the militia to arm its citizens.

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

 

[meaner gene]

That is why the 2nd amendment said that power rested in the state militias, the well regulated militias,

No, the 2nd says the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, NOT the militia.

How many words of 2nd amendment do you have to IGNORE in order to read it that way?

 

[BlackSand]

Gaetz explained the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was a right of the people, but a right through the local elected government, who was in charge of the militia to arm its citizens.

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

.

You don't need to explain what isn't in the Second Amendment.
It's not there ... It doesn't say or mean what you want it to mean.

A State can form, arm and regulate a militia without violating the individual's right.
No one is asking you to make something up that suggests otherwise, or isn't in the Second Amendment.

.​

 

[Auld Phart]

That is why the 2nd amendment said that power rested in the state militias, the well regulated militias,

No, the 2nd says the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, NOT the militia.

How many words of 2nd amendment do you have to IGNORE in order to read it that way?

None.

How many did you ignore to come to your conclusion?


(Probably everything after the second comma)

 

[2aguy]

Gaetz was right. When they wrote the constitution the states feared the power of a central federal government. And having overthrown one king, they wanted to preserve the power to do it again.

.

Incorrect ... The State can form, arm, and regulate a militia without violating an individual's rights.
Try Again ... Nutter.

.​

Gaetz explained the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was a right of the people, but a right through the local elected government, who was in charge of the militia to arm its citizens.

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

Wrong...not even close.......civilians brought their personal rifles and pistols to muster.....

We trained a national army with the help of Laffayette.....

 

[2aguy]

Gaetz was right. When they wrote the constitution the states feared the power of a central federal government. And having overthrown one king, they wanted to preserve the power to do it again.

.

Incorrect ... The State can form, arm, and regulate a militia without violating an individual's rights.
Try Again ... Nutter.

.​

Gaetz explained the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was a right of the people, but a right through the local elected government, who was in charge of the militia to arm its citizens.

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

Here....learn something...

 

[meaner gene]

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

.

You don't need to explain what isn't in the Second Amendment.
It's not there ... It doesn't say or mean what you want it to mean.

A State can form, arm and regulate a militia without violating the individual's right.
No one is asking you to make something up that suggests otherwise, or isn't in the Second Amendment.

.​

There is no individual right in the 2nd, no matter what Scalia twisted into Heller V DC. It's clear from the text " the right of the people" is used, not an individual reference.

And the case stating such right DC V Heller, ... well read about the problem for yourself.

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights, the Court said.11 In District of Columbia v. Heller12 in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a
consistent meaning throughout the Constitution.13 But Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community.” Heller thus contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of
Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “the people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution. Heller’s analysis has created a tension
that has attracted little notice

 

[BlackSand]

There is no individual right in the 2nd, no matter what Scalia twisted into Heller V DC. It's clear from the text " the right of the people" is used, not an individual reference.

And the case stating such right DC V Heller, ... well read about the problem for yourself.

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights, the Court said.11 In District of Columbia v. Heller12 in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a
consistent meaning throughout the Constitution.13 But Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community.” Heller thus contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of
Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “the people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution. Heller’s analysis has created a tension
that has attracted little notice

.

There most certainly is an individual right in the Constitution ...
It is plainly written as such, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court as being so.

The reason you have trouble understanding it, is because you want it to mean something it doesn't, in order to satisfy your desires.
Go Pound Sand ... Nutter.

.​

 

[meaner gene]

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

Wrong...not even close.......civilians brought their personal rifles and pistols to muster.....

We trained a national army with the help of Laffayette.....

Some common mistakes is that the militia used it's own weapons, which would have been a hodgepodge of different rifles of different caliber and none with bayonets.

Instead the militia was provisioned by the states with muskets.

 

[2aguy]

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

.

You don't need to explain what isn't in the Second Amendment.
It's not there ... It doesn't say or mean what you want it to mean.

A State can form, arm and regulate a militia without violating the individual's right.
No one is asking you to make something up that suggests otherwise, or isn't in the Second Amendment.

.​

There is no individual right in the 2nd, no matter what Scalia twisted into Heller V DC. It's clear from the text " the right of the people" is used, not an individual reference.

And the case stating such right DC V Heller, ... well read about the problem for yourself.

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights, the Court said.11 In District of Columbia v. Heller12 in 2008, the Court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition, and similarly suggested that the term “the people” has a
consistent meaning throughout the Constitution.13 But Heller also said that “the people” “refers to all members of the political community.” Heller thus contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of
Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “the people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution. Heller’s analysis has created a tension
that has attracted little notice

You don't know what you are talking about....how do you manage not to throw out your back with those mental gymnastics?

The People means citizens, not a militia you dumbbell....

From Heller, you idiot..

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.”

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.


Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6


What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.” T


his contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause.

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Will you guys ever stop lying about what the 2nd Amendment actually states?

 

[2aguy]

Just think of how the revolutionary war was fought. It wasn't with a national standing army, but by state militias called into service of the federal government.

Wrong...not even close.......civilians brought their personal rifles and pistols to muster.....

We trained a national army with the help of Laffayette.....

Some common mistakes is that the militia used it's own weapons, which would have been a hodgepodge of different rifles of different caliber and none with bayonets.

Instead the militia was provisioned by the states with muskets.

Moron, the militia consisted of the colonists bringing their own rifles with a certain amount of powder and balls, with the rest of the militia powder stored away from people where it couldn't explode and hurt people.....

You don't have any idea what you are talking about.....

again...

 

[meaner gene]

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

1st amendment:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

This is clearly not an individual right, from simple definition and logic.

So that statement is wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Antifa, if such a thing exists,

It doesn’t as perceived by conservatives and as lied about by conservatives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Antifa, if such a thing exists, exists to obstruct and confront the kind of violence carried out by the types of people who sacked the Capitol building on January 6th. I support using force, deadly if necessary, to stop fascists, criminals, arsonists, and looters. If Antifa commits it, they are no better than the fascist Trumpists.

.

I don't think many people that support their Constitutionally Protected Right to bear arms for more than just hunting ...
Mind you supplying them with the perfect reason to have it way ... Thanks.

.​

It would appear to me that those same people thought they could attack the Capitol building to overturn a free and fair election. Next time they stage their revolution, and their firearms they so proudly cherish, they will find out the government has guns too. And most of us will support their using them.

A good fascist is a dead fascist. We learned this in the 1940's.

The irony is that the 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy demonstrates the fact that a coup attempt can be launched absent firearms and that other types of weapons are just as useful, if not more so.

 

[2aguy]

Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6

1st amendment:

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

This is clearly not an individual right, from simple definition and logic.

So that statement is wrong.

Are you an idiot.......?

According to what you are saying, you have no right to stand in the public and state your grievances, you can only do it as part of a group?

Are you this stupid?