The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

Tyranny of the government doesn't get a pass if you want a free state.
Hence: The January 6th committee.
So tell me will a tyrannical government defend itself from itself to maintain a free state?
The capitol police did a good job, the January 6th committee, is exposing the rest.
The justice department will take care of them, some have already been sentenced to prison.
 
No, that's the RWNJ/gun manufacturers/republican objective.
Tell their gullible cult, THEY are going to ban/confiscate guns.............keep repeating it for 40 years.
The morons will go out and purchase something, they're convinced will be banned/confiscated.

It takes a special kind of stupid to do that.
A perfect match for gullible RWNJ's.
"If I had the votes, I would ban them all" - Dianne Feinstein.

The current bill bans all semi-automatics. Don't lie and say they aren't trying to ban everything.
 
If you are going to make up an argument out of whole cloth, at least be pithy about it.
No one with any understanding of the language, then or today, can read the Second as a government requirement to form or stand up a militia of any kind.
You are correct - "...being necessary..." is a statement of condition, not a specific requirement laid upon the state.
The constitution gives congress the power to "well regulate" the militia, and creates no particular requirement of congress as to the level of anything it must maintain when doing so - however congress chooses regulates the militia, it is "well-regulated".

That is, the definition of "well regulated" is left to Congress, as limited by the powers granted to it in that regard and the restrictions found in the 2nd.



 
Last edited:
So reading isn't something you're good at, is it? I didn't mention a single state constitution; I mentioned what the states demanded as a condition of ratifying the United States Constitution and what they demanded be included in a bill of rights.

If you were capable of reading with an open mind, which clearly you are not, you would understand that the states explicitly named the militia clause as a completely separate requirement on the government. In fact, they specified the right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause second.

That they ratified the amendments in what would become The Bill of Rights, proves that they believed that Madison's edits, edits only designed to bring the 4 variations into a common statement, did not change the meaning or intent. Had it done that, changed the meaning or intent, as understood by the entire Congress and the Legislatures of the 13 States, they would not have ratified the amendments that became the Bill of Rights.

Do you honestly believe that 4 states explicitly demanded in the very document in which they communicated their ratification of the Constitution of the United States, that there be a clause stating that the militia is critical to the defense of a free state, but then would let it be turned into nothing more than a reason for the right to keep and bear arms? Well of course you do because you have a close mind, not capable of thinking for yourself, but can only parrot the words others wrote for you.

So, you're right. What counts is in the Constitution, but to understand the Constitution you can't read it as though it was written in 2022. You have to read it as if it was written in 1789. I showed you exactly how to do that but you chose not to read the entire post and not to actually learn anything new.
Perhaps you should reconsider how it is you frame an argument and what manner of information you include in that arguement.

I happen to read at a Graduate level. You? I have doubts.,
 
Oh' that's right, FOX is boycotting the entire coverage.
So, if FOX doesn't report it, it's a lie.

No..when the democrats run it, it is a lie…,,,,they refused to let the republicans pick the republicans on the committee, they call all the witnesses, ask all the questions, and refuse to release 1,400 hours of actual video……if you think this isn’t a lie, then Soviet show trials must really be your thing……
 
No..when the democrats run it, it is a lie…,,,,they refused to let the republicans pick the republicans on the committee, they call all the witnesses, ask all the questions, and refuse to release 1,400 hours of actual video……if you think this isn’t a lie, then Soviet show trials must really be your thing……
As usual, you're FOS.

Democrats refused to let the crackpots that could be witnesses on the committee.

Pelosi said she had no objection to the other three representatives picked by McCarthy — Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls.

It was Trump's ass kisser who pulled all of them.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy says he will pull all five of his picks to serve on the select committee investigating the January 6 assault on the Capitol, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't rescind her rejection of two of his recommendations, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.
"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts."

Call witnesses?
It isn't court it's a hearing, moron.

And BTW, the committee called witnesses, Trumptard's from Trump's own regime, including his own daughter and SIL they could have asked any questions they wanted.
Why didn't they?

The "show" trial was republicans 12 year, multi-million waste of taxpayer $$$ trying to get Clinton, and didn't even get an arrest.
 

Forum List

Back
Top