The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[Cecilie1200]

And the fed could call up the militias in times of need,

The only "militia" they could call up are men under 45.(of course they are untrained and out of shape and it would be a total disaster...akin to Hitler calling out the Volkstrumme)

So this is about that group and only that group?

Scalia didn't want to try that absurd argument so he pretended that the militia clause wasn't even there.

dear god, practically our entire military is made up of guys under 45. If the people have the right to bear arms, and the right to assemble, then you can’t ban militias. The dick act was just establishing the national guard as a separate entity from what was termed unorganized militias as a result. Militias that still exist, where not every member is 44 and on the brink of a massive heart attack. The main point of militias was not to be called upon by the government for defense, or suppress insurrections, although they could step in and serve that purpose when necessary. The main point of militias(armed and trained citizens), or why they were necessary for the “FREE state” was that government is going to have a very hard time turning tyrannical against armed and trained citizens. The inverse is, it’s pretty easy for a government to turn tyrannical on unarmed citizens. Armed citizens is a threat to the state, which is a good thing to the founders, who thought that every so often, future generations might have to exercise force to put the government back in its place. Again, this is the natural law argument, which the constitution/BOR is undeniably based upon. You were given the ability to defend yourself, that is natural, even if what you are defend yourself against is the highest order of government officials.

Your point, based on the practically of unorganized militias for “common defense”, as well as based on assumptions that the militia is only made up of guys who get around on rascals, isn’t even pointed in the correct direction.

The regular army has nothing whatsoever to do with the militia

The DIck Act absolutely disbanded the militia (yes some really small state militias exist ) and it absolutely placed a limit on who it's members were in the UNORGANIZED (NOT Well Regulated) militia. That was males under 45

You claim

"The main point of militias was not to be called upon by the government for defense, or suppress insurrections"

Bullshit. Read the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8. Obviously you have not

And what you describe as the "real purpose" is an insurrection. Exactly what Article 1 Section 8 says the militia was enacted to PUT DOWN

No, Article 1 tells us what the federal government can call militias for. That's not the same as saying that was the only, or primary, use for a militia.

And are you really going to tell us that the same men who staged the American Revolutionary War were opposed to overthrowing tyrannical government?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the fed could call up the militias in times of need,

The only "militia" they could call up are men under 45.(of course they are untrained and out of shape and it would be a total disaster...akin to Hitler calling out the Volkstrumme)

So this is about that group and only that group?

Scalia didn't want to try that absurd argument so he pretended that the militia clause wasn't even there.

dear god, practically our entire military is made up of guys under 45. If the people have the right to bear arms, and the right to assemble, then you can’t ban militias. The dick act was just establishing the national guard as a separate entity from what was termed unorganized militias as a result. Militias that still exist, where not every member is 44 and on the brink of a massive heart attack. The main point of militias was not to be called upon by the government for defense, or suppress insurrections, although they could step in and serve that purpose when necessary. The main point of militias(armed and trained citizens), or why they were necessary for the “FREE state” was that government is going to have a very hard time turning tyrannical against armed and trained citizens. The inverse is, it’s pretty easy for a government to turn tyrannical on unarmed citizens. Armed citizens is a threat to the state, which is a good thing to the founders, who thought that every so often, future generations might have to exercise force to put the government back in its place. Again, this is the natural law argument, which the constitution/BOR is undeniably based upon. You were given the ability to defend yourself, that is natural, even if what you are defend yourself against is the highest order of government officials.

Your point, based on the practically of unorganized militias for “common defense”, as well as based on assumptions that the militia is only made up of guys who get around on rascals, isn’t even pointed in the correct direction.

The regular army has nothing whatsoever to do with the militia

The DIck Act absolutely disbanded the militia (yes some really small state militias exist ) and it absolutely placed a limit on who it's members were in the UNORGANIZED (NOT Well Regulated) militia. That was males under 45

You claim

"The main point of militias was not to be called upon by the government for defense, or suppress insurrections"

Bullshit. Read the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8. Obviously you have not

And what you describe as the "real purpose" is an insurrection. Exactly what Article 1 Section 8 says the militia was enacted to PUT DOWN

I know a few people who disagree with your interpretation of the enumerated powers...as well as a couple of amendments (9th and 10th).

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson,

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson,

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason,

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster,

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry,

I think you get the picture.Your anger at Scalia is misplaced, you should be angry at these guys. Obviously these are just a few short quotes. There a whole slew of dissertations on this subject matter. Can we dispense with the mental gymnastics and willful blindness? If you do not like the second amendment, repeal it.

Also, the 9th and 10th amendments basically stated that anything not mentioned in the bill of rights or granted to the government in the enumerated powers should be left to the people then to the states. Madison’s argument against the bill of rights was that it might give government the idea that if it’s not prohibited in the BOR, then government will get the idea that they can do it. This is why he added these amendments. Calling on the militia is something that the fed can do, since they were barred from having a standing army of their own. That doesn’t mean they have control over the militia. That doesn’t mean the only insurrections were ones that could come from militias. It also doesn’t mean that government is always justified in putting down insurrections. Besides wasn’t your intitial argument the 2nd amendment was a states right issue...your not even consistent with your own arguments. Your just like the big foot hunters, out in the woods in lawn chairs pointing to shadows and freaking out because you think you just saw big foot.

That's all well and good but we're talking about what actually IN the Constitution

Weren't you just championing looking at the why that something was written? Now, all of a sudden, you want to ignore the explanations.

 

[sakinago]

A prefatory clause is a precursor to the operative clause. The operative clause states what must be done. The prefatory clause states why it should be done. For example, the second amendment to the United States Constitution is a prefatory clause followed by an operative clause. The first part of the amendment states ''a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the condition of a free state.'' This is the prefatory clause. The second part of the amendment states ''the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' This is the operative clause.

WHY IT SHOULD BE DONE. Without the "why" the rest makes no sense

Did it escape your notice that NONE of this indicates that the prefatory clause modifies or restricts the operatve clause? It's almost like listing a reason for doing something has no effect on what that something is.

I won't even bother addressing your absurd notion that "militia" meant to people in the 18th century what it means to modern-day illiterates like you, because your post has already put me dangerously close to my daily quota of immature silliness.

The why, in why CITIZENS militias were necessary is because a free state does not exist when the state has the monopoly of force. The constitution is based on natural law. God/nature gives us the ability of free will, therefore governments function is to secure freedom. God/nature gives us the ability to speak=free speech. God/nature gives us the ability to defend ourselves from whatever threats come our way, no matter what uniform they have on=second amendment. If the second amendment was just about the government providing “security” for the people, they would’ve went with the standing army over the militia. This is because militias suck against standing armies. There was a debate at the time whether or not to have a standing army, but never was it aimed to replace militias because the founders universally agreed that citizens needed to be armed in case the government got out of hand. Remember the people have the right to abolish the government that fails to uphold their liberties. Considering it’s pretty rare for people in power to just relinquish that power without a fight should be a pretty clear indication of the “why” behind the prefatory clause. To which we get the next clause stating therefore “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s not immature silliness, it’s simply not being so naive to think “well the government isn’t full blown turning on me now, therefore they’ll never do so in the future.”

Again, we’re not trying to decode ancient Sumarian hieroglyphs here, the intentions behind the second amendment were very clear. We have a shit ton of first hand accounts on the matter. If you don’t like the second amendment, repeal it, instead of trying to mentally squeeze a square peg in a round hole. It comes off as whiny.

Hey, twat-burger. Maybe the next time you want to get off on a kneejerk rant at someone for "If you don't like the second amendment, repeal it", you could take two seconds, pretend to have a brain, and direct your incoherent, nasty bullshit at someone who ACTUALLY dislikes the Second Amendment. I would care a lot more that you think my post "comes off as whiny" if YOUR post didn't come off as though you're an illiterate dipshit.

Fuck you, moron. Learn to read.

I meant to reply to the person you replied too, clicked on your reply and didn’t notice. That’s why I answered the question of the “why” behind the prefatory clause. I got a good laugh out of your response though.

So you aren't bright enough to pay attention to who you're responding to, because you're too busy frothing at the mouth, and now you're sitting in your chair, laughing at nothing?

That's a sign of insanity, dimwit. Congratulations.

Or a sign of being distracted. Forgive me, but I don’t necessarily devote 100% of my attention to randoms on USMB. I don’t think anyone should because there is such a low level of honest conversation and debate that happens here. I also wouldn’t classify myself as frothing from the mouth either. Not the one using terms like twat-burger, or dimwit. Those are a bit harsher than naive. Take a deep breath, it’s all going to be okay. The only part of my post that made sense in response to yours was the naive vs silliness line. That I probably just saw above my text and attributed to the post I thought I was responding too. That was my bad, so my apologies. It’s also not a big of deal as you’re making it out to be. You are getting irrate over this, and that I am not going to apologize for. Move on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That's all well and good but we're talking about what actually IN the Constitution

Yea like the 9th and 10th amendments. Unless you honestly believe that the founders contradicted themselves so blantantly, and/or misunderstood their own constitution. What’s infinitely more likely is that you don’t understand the constitution. Occam’s razor anyone? This has gotten to the point of silliness. You’ve come to the point where you’re contridicting yourself. Pearls before swine.

Occam's Razor says you read the 2A as written...all of it.

And if you want a consideration of what the militia is that the 2A is talking about...Article 1 Section 8 explains it very well.

I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”

I’m also pretty sure you claimed earlier that the 2nd was meant as a states rights against federal rights issue. Now you’re claiming its a federal right. I’ll find it if need be.

So which is it, did the founders blatantly contridict themselves. Or did they not understand the constitution they wrote? Which one are you going to run with?

They had a very good understanding until about 1859 when things changed in what weapons became available. I notice everyone keeps saying, more or less, back then. Well, you are correct. From about 1750 to 1851 the weapons didn't change that much. The armies were armed with pretty much the same weapons as what was in the homes. Even the Canons were the same as the ones in the communities. In fact, the community canons were generally used by the army and then returned if they could be. The organized militia did the protecting of the community for the most part. Yes, there was a standing Army but it was held to a total of 75,000 people and any state could muster more than that in their state's militia. But the State's militia was comprised of citizen soldiers that took time out from their day to day jobs like smithy or farming when called upon. They could not do any long term campaigns. The 2nd amendment was written for this type of environment. But around 1859, the weapons outgrew the amendment and the Civil War and Indian Wars pretty well tossed it out the window. The US now had a large standing army even if was temporarily made up of volunteers at first. By the end of the Civil War, they were drafting on both sides. The US went directly from the Civil War to the Indian Wars. The standing army of 75,000 was thrown out the window and artillery with exploding, time shells and gatling guns were introduced. And let's not forget the Hotckiss Canon which was a little tiny nasty piece of work and scare the beejesus out of the Indians. By the time WWI came about, we didn't use Canons anymore. We used Artillery which was way too expensive and too difficult for your town yokels to operate affectively. It went from a couple of hundred feet range to a few miles. The cost became staggering.

What happened to the simple, straight forward wording of the 2nd amendment? Our weapons and the size of our armies outgrew it.

No the principle behind the second amendment is that people need to have the ability to enact force upon their government if needed, or whoever threatened life/liberty, that’s a natural right. This is laid out in the DOI which sets the framework for the constitution. DOI is the what, the constitution is the how. The founders wanted the citizens to be armed and trained, as long as their conscious allowed that. This was to be a check on government. Nothing has changed about that.

You still have yet to answer what do you consider “within reason”. The Swiss have a full auto assault rifle in every closet, and can walk down the street with it on their shoulder whenever they please. They are also the safest place on the planet.

I will answer that question when an open dialogue comes to be in our elected governments. Right now, there is no discussion allowed since the two diametrically opposing sides are so loud and spreading millions so fast that it doesn't allow it. The Majority tries to be heard but we get drowned out by the noise level of the few.

 

[Lesh]

"I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”"

I'm reading that part AND the part that comes before it explaining why that part is there.

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer have a well regulated militia and it is no longer necessary since we have that large standing Army that the FOunders didn't have and didn't want

 

[Skull Pilot]

"I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”"

I'm reading that part AND the part that comes before it explaining why that part is there.

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer have a well regulated militia and it is no longer necessary since we have that large standing Army that the FOunders didn't have and didn't want

The people are the militia
as long as there are people in the US there is a militia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”"

I'm reading that part AND the part that comes before it explaining why that part is there.

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer have a well regulated militia and it is no longer necessary since we have that large standing Army that the FOunders didn't have and didn't want

Which is irrelevant to the fact that the right to bear arms STILL isn't contingent on any of that.

There is no number of times that you are going to say, "I know better than everyone else, and YOU CAN'T HAVE GUNS BECAUSE I READ IT THIS WAY!!!" that's going to make you either correct, or the winner of this point. I'd say I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the truth is, I really enjoy knowing that you're so helplessly frustrated by people having rights you don't want them to have.

 

[sakinago]

Yea like the 9th and 10th amendments. Unless you honestly believe that the founders contradicted themselves so blantantly, and/or misunderstood their own constitution. What’s infinitely more likely is that you don’t understand the constitution. Occam’s razor anyone? This has gotten to the point of silliness. You’ve come to the point where you’re contridicting yourself. Pearls before swine.

Occam's Razor says you read the 2A as written...all of it.

And if you want a consideration of what the militia is that the 2A is talking about...Article 1 Section 8 explains it very well.

I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”

I’m also pretty sure you claimed earlier that the 2nd was meant as a states rights against federal rights issue. Now you’re claiming its a federal right. I’ll find it if need be.

So which is it, did the founders blatantly contridict themselves. Or did they not understand the constitution they wrote? Which one are you going to run with?

They had a very good understanding until about 1859 when things changed in what weapons became available. I notice everyone keeps saying, more or less, back then. Well, you are correct. From about 1750 to 1851 the weapons didn't change that much. The armies were armed with pretty much the same weapons as what was in the homes. Even the Canons were the same as the ones in the communities. In fact, the community canons were generally used by the army and then returned if they could be. The organized militia did the protecting of the community for the most part. Yes, there was a standing Army but it was held to a total of 75,000 people and any state could muster more than that in their state's militia. But the State's militia was comprised of citizen soldiers that took time out from their day to day jobs like smithy or farming when called upon. They could not do any long term campaigns. The 2nd amendment was written for this type of environment. But around 1859, the weapons outgrew the amendment and the Civil War and Indian Wars pretty well tossed it out the window. The US now had a large standing army even if was temporarily made up of volunteers at first. By the end of the Civil War, they were drafting on both sides. The US went directly from the Civil War to the Indian Wars. The standing army of 75,000 was thrown out the window and artillery with exploding, time shells and gatling guns were introduced. And let's not forget the Hotckiss Canon which was a little tiny nasty piece of work and scare the beejesus out of the Indians. By the time WWI came about, we didn't use Canons anymore. We used Artillery which was way too expensive and too difficult for your town yokels to operate affectively. It went from a couple of hundred feet range to a few miles. The cost became staggering.

What happened to the simple, straight forward wording of the 2nd amendment? Our weapons and the size of our armies outgrew it.

No the principle behind the second amendment is that people need to have the ability to enact force upon their government if needed, or whoever threatened life/liberty, that’s a natural right. This is laid out in the DOI which sets the framework for the constitution. DOI is the what, the constitution is the how. The founders wanted the citizens to be armed and trained, as long as their conscious allowed that. This was to be a check on government. Nothing has changed about that.

You still have yet to answer what do you consider “within reason”. The Swiss have a full auto assault rifle in every closet, and can walk down the street with it on their shoulder whenever they please. They are also the safest place on the planet.

I will answer that question when an open dialogue comes to be in our elected governments. Right now, there is no discussion allowed since the two diametrically opposing sides are so loud and spreading millions so fast that it doesn't allow it. The Majority tries to be heard but we get drowned out by the noise level of the few.

It’s an internet message board. You can say whatever you want to say. You’re not being nominated for the Supreme Court here. If you want I can set up a bull ring.

 

[2aguy]

"I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”"

I'm reading that part AND the part that comes before it explaining why that part is there.

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..."

We no longer have a well regulated militia and it is no longer necessary since we have that large standing Army that the FOunders didn't have and didn't want

Read D.C v Heller....they explain it so well that even someone like you can understand it...

 

[2aguy]

I know a few people who disagree with your interpretation of the enumerated powers...as well as a couple of amendments (9th and 10th).

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson,

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson,

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason,

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster,

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison,

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry,

I think you get the picture.Your anger at Scalia is misplaced, you should be angry at these guys. Obviously these are just a few short quotes. There a whole slew of dissertations on this subject matter. Can we dispense with the mental gymnastics and willful blindness? If you do not like the second amendment, repeal it.

Also, the 9th and 10th amendments basically stated that anything not mentioned in the bill of rights or granted to the government in the enumerated powers should be left to the people then to the states. Madison’s argument against the bill of rights was that it might give government the idea that if it’s not prohibited in the BOR, then government will get the idea that they can do it. This is why he added these amendments. Calling on the militia is something that the fed can do, since they were barred from having a standing army of their own. That doesn’t mean they have control over the militia. That doesn’t mean the only insurrections were ones that could come from militias. It also doesn’t mean that government is always justified in putting down insurrections. Besides wasn’t your intitial argument the 2nd amendment was a states right issue...your not even consistent with your own arguments. Your just like the big foot hunters, out in the woods in lawn chairs pointing to shadows and freaking out because you think you just saw big foot.

That's all well and good but we're talking about what actually IN the Constitution

Yea like the 9th and 10th amendments. Unless you honestly believe that the founders contradicted themselves so blantantly, and/or misunderstood their own constitution. What’s infinitely more likely is that you don’t understand the constitution. Occam’s razor anyone? This has gotten to the point of silliness. You’ve come to the point where you’re contridicting yourself. Pearls before swine.

Occam's Razor says you read the 2A as written...all of it.

And if you want a consideration of what the militia is that the 2A is talking about...Article 1 Section 8 explains it very well.

I know both the enumerated powers, and the 2nd amendment. And you’re not reading the part that says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.”

I’m also pretty sure you claimed earlier that the 2nd was meant as a states rights against federal rights issue. Now you’re claiming its a federal right. I’ll find it if need be.

So which is it, did the founders blatantly contridict themselves. Or did they not understand the constitution they wrote? Which one are you going to run with?

They had a very good understanding until about 1859 when things changed in what weapons became available. I notice everyone keeps saying, more or less, back then. Well, you are correct. From about 1750 to 1851 the weapons didn't change that much. The armies were armed with pretty much the same weapons as what was in the homes. Even the Canons were the same as the ones in the communities. In fact, the community canons were generally used by the army and then returned if they could be. The organized militia did the protecting of the community for the most part. Yes, there was a standing Army but it was held to a total of 75,000 people and any state could muster more than that in their state's militia. But the State's militia was comprised of citizen soldiers that took time out from their day to day jobs like smithy or farming when called upon. They could not do any long term campaigns. The 2nd amendment was written for this type of environment. But around 1859, the weapons outgrew the amendment and the Civil War and Indian Wars pretty well tossed it out the window. The US now had a large standing army even if was temporarily made up of volunteers at first. By the end of the Civil War, they were drafting on both sides. The US went directly from the Civil War to the Indian Wars. The standing army of 75,000 was thrown out the window and artillery with exploding, time shells and gatling guns were introduced. And let's not forget the Hotckiss Canon which was a little tiny nasty piece of work and scare the beejesus out of the Indians. By the time WWI came about, we didn't use Canons anymore. We used Artillery which was way too expensive and too difficult for your town yokels to operate affectively. It went from a couple of hundred feet range to a few miles. The cost became staggering.

What happened to the simple, straight forward wording of the 2nd amendment? Our weapons and the size of our armies outgrew it.

Wrong..... you should really stop.

 

[2aguy]

Thank God for our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The firearm industry is alive and well in the United States, according to a recent study, which found that demand for guns and concealed carry permits continues to skyrocket. Of course, this also means that gun control propaganda is failing.

Despite the best efforts of the left, the American people have common sense and see right through the propaganda.

Study: Demand for concealed carry weapons permits skyrocketing despite anti-gun campaigning

WHat that means is that with all the lobbying money from the NRA and gun manufacturers...we don't have a lot of hope of seeing a reduction of gun violence unless we change Washington drastically

The NRA isn't even in the top 50 for donations you twit. And all of the unions, the lawyer associations are all anti gun, giving money to anti gun politicians. If you want to stop gun crime, stop voting for democrats. It is their policies that allow known, violent, repeat gun offenders out on bail and out of jail over and over again...these are the ones shooting people, not law abiding gun owners.

 

[P@triot]

The progressive propaganda is rapidly unraveling...

“By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average,” the study found.

All of that left-wing rhetoric that “this doesn’t happen in other nations” is pure bullshit. It not only happens in other nations, but on a much greater scale. We make up 4.6% of the world’s population but experience only 1.43% of the world’s mass public shootings.

New research debunks ‘cherry-picked’ pro-gun control study the mainstream media routinely cite

 

[Lesh]

The people are the militia
as long as there are people in the US there is a militia.

According to the Dick Act ONLY males between 17 and 45 are part of the UNORGANIZED militia. Nothing well regulated about it. No rank. No training. No roll call. No officers. All things that the Constitution describes as being what a well regulated militia are made of.

Scalia using political partisan logic realized that based on that...the 2A had to be decoupled (illogically) from the militia clause if he was going to USE it politically

 

[Lesh]

The NRA isn't even in the top 50 for donations you twit.

30 million in direct donations and hundreds of millions more in dark money.

It is in fact the largest single donor

 

[Lesh]

From Politifact

The NRA’s biggest chunk of spending on politics came from "outside spending," consisting largely of "independent expenditures" — efforts "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Often these take the form of campaign ads, but they are carried out without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting.

This type of spending vastly outpaces what the NRA spent on giving to candidates directly. The NRA spent $144.3 million on outside spending, such as independent expenditures, during that period.

In addition, the NRA since 1998 has reported spending a cumulative $45.9 million on federal lobbying, both for its in-house operations and the outside consultants it has retained.

If you add it all up -- candidate and party contributions, independent expenditures, and lobbying -- the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998.

 

[Lesh]

Weren't you just championing looking at the why that something was written? Now, all of a sudden, you want to ignore the explanations.

Yea...using what is written IN the document in question.

Ya know...the Constitution.

You've heard of it right?

 

[2aguy]

The NRA isn't even in the top 50 for donations you twit.

30 million in direct donations and hundreds of millions more in dark money.

It is in fact the largest single donor

Link.... and it doesn't come close to the labor unions, the AMA the lawyers groups....they dwarf the NRA you twit.

 

[2aguy]

From Politifact

The NRA’s biggest chunk of spending on politics came from "outside spending," consisting largely of "independent expenditures" — efforts "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Often these take the form of campaign ads, but they are carried out without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting.

This type of spending vastly outpaces what the NRA spent on giving to candidates directly. The NRA spent $144.3 million on outside spending, such as independent expenditures, during that period.

In addition, the NRA since 1998 has reported spending a cumulative $45.9 million on federal lobbying, both for its in-house operations and the outside consultants it has retained.

If you add it all up -- candidate and party contributions, independent expenditures, and lobbying -- the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998.

Since 1998? Over 20 years? Did you do that math?


So....10 million dollars a year? Are you kidding me? Do you know how much the unions spend every single year?

If the NRA owns Republicans, Planned Parenthood owns Democrats

But this highlights one of the most pervasive misunderstandings about the NRA’s involvement in politics. Candidates actually “accept” very little money from gun-rights groups. Instead, almost all of the spending the NRA does is in the form of issue advertising independent of the candidates they support.

Though gun-control advocates may try to smear Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., for having taken $3.3 million from the NRA, the reality is that the group has directly donated only about $5,000 to his campaigns.

The rest is in the form of its own spending, which the NRA would have every right to do even if Rubio told them to stop or if he disagreed with its message. And, of course, a direct contribution of a few thousand dollars is an almost infinitesimal amount when compared with a congressman’s total fundraising.

 

[Lesh]

Link.... and it doesn't come close to the labor unions, the AMA the lawyers groups....they dwarf the NRA you twit.

That's hundreds of times what any gun regulation org spends and unions are not single issue lobbyists.

Twit

 

[2aguy]

From Politifact

The NRA’s biggest chunk of spending on politics came from "outside spending," consisting largely of "independent expenditures" — efforts "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Often these take the form of campaign ads, but they are carried out without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting.

This type of spending vastly outpaces what the NRA spent on giving to candidates directly. The NRA spent $144.3 million on outside spending, such as independent expenditures, during that period.

In addition, the NRA since 1998 has reported spending a cumulative $45.9 million on federal lobbying, both for its in-house operations and the outside consultants it has retained.

If you add it all up -- candidate and party contributions, independent expenditures, and lobbying -- the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998.

Hey, genius....add up the individual union contributions to anti gun, democrat politicians.....tell us who gives out more, them or the NRA..

Labor | OpenSecrets