The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[P@triot]

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

It does mean something. It means that a freedom requires an armed populace. It means a free man doesn’t ask permission to own a firearm or ask permission for types of firearms.

 

[P@triot]

More left-wing firearm propaganda exposed...

Dianne Feinstein: 'Hundreds' of School Shootings with 'Assault Weapons' | Breitbart

 

[P@triot]

For people who claim to hate firearms, the people in power on the left sure love to be surrounded by them. I guess they view it like wealth: it’s ok for them to have. Completely unacceptable for you to have it.

Taxpayers Funded 'Unprecedented' Armed Protection for Gun Control Sen. Kamala Harris | Breitbart

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Of course it means something. What it doesn't mean, however, is that people can own guns only if they belong to a regulated militia.

it doesn't say that; it says, you must be well regulated, to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

It does mean something. It means that a freedom requires an armed populace. It means a free man doesn’t ask permission to own a firearm or ask permission for types of firearms.

For the security of a free State of the Union, of the People.

 

[danielpalos]

For people who claim to hate firearms, the people in power on the left sure love to be surrounded by them. I guess they view it like wealth: it’s ok for them to have. Completely unacceptable for you to have it.

Taxpayers Funded 'Unprecedented' Armed Protection for Gun Control Sen. Kamala Harris | Breitbart

She should become, "a Shaolin nun".

 

[hadit]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Of course it means something. What it doesn't mean, however, is that people can own guns only if they belong to a regulated militia.

it doesn't say that; it says, you must be well regulated, to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

No, it does not say that. It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about "for your State or the Union". You added that in there yourself, and desperately hope that it will somehow magically appear if you say it often enough, but IT'S NOT IN THERE.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I not only have heard of it, I also understand what it says, unlike you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You're an idiot. First, the NRA doesn't donate that much, and second, the American Trial Lawyer Association - or whatever they're calling themselves these days - donated $207 million to politicians in just 2016 alone. They've been the single largest group in terms of political donations for many years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors. Only THAT single issue! Damn it, stop bothering me with facts when I'm trying to hate the NRA as evil incarnate!"

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Of course it means something. What it doesn't mean, however, is that people can own guns only if they belong to a regulated militia.

it doesn't say that; it says, you must be well regulated, to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

No, it does not say that. It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about "for your State or the Union". You added that in there yourself, and desperately hope that it will somehow magically appear if you say it often enough, but IT'S NOT IN THERE.

The security of a free State of our Union is expressly declared as the reason for a well regulated militia. We should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[Lesh]

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors

They are absolutely the largest donor by orders of magnitude on this issue...and they have bled into many others as they became more political

The NRA talks and the GOP jumps.

And they get tens of millions from Russia...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors

They are absolutely the largest donor by orders of magnitude on this issue...and they have bled into many others as they became more political

The NRA talks and the GOP jumps.

And they get tens of millions from Russia...

Oh, well, since you said it AGAIN, that must make it true. I thought you were full of shit until you repeated yourself.

Facts, tweeko. Tell me facts. Your opinions and assertions mean nothing to me, because if you told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

 

[Lesh]

And once again let me point out.

I am a gun owner.
But I understand what the Constitution says and gun rights are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution outside of their use in a non-existent militia.(Despite Scalia's tortured ruminations)

That doesn't mean that we don't HAVE gun rights...but rather that they are subject to state and local laws.

 

[Dale Smith]

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors

They are absolutely the largest donor by orders of magnitude on this issue...and they have bled into many others as they became more political

The NRA talks and the GOP jumps.

And they get tens of millions from Russia...

The NRA gets tens of millions of dollars from Russia??????? Got a link on that? Also, have you an address so I can send them a "thank you" card if that was indeed the case? The Chi-coms are championing draconian gun legislation.....how many of their serfs are allowed to own weapons?????

You see, leftards want an unarmed public and that has to happen before the commie revolution has even a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[Lesh]

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors

They are absolutely the largest donor by orders of magnitude on this issue...and they have bled into many others as they became more political

The NRA talks and the GOP jumps.

And they get tens of millions from Russia...

Oh, well, since you said it AGAIN, that must make it true. I thought you were full of shit until you repeated yourself.

Facts, tweeko. Tell me facts. Your opinions and assertions mean nothing to me, because if you told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

Save the name calling if you want to sound like anything approaching a reasonable person

From Open Secrets

The National Rifle Association’s overall spending surged by more than $100 million in 2016, surpassing any previous annual NRA spending totals on record, according to an audit obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The explosion in spending came as the NRA poured unprecedented amounts of money into efforts to deliver Donald Trump the White House and help Republicans hold both houses of Congress.

The audit filed with the state of North Carolina shows that the NRA’s total expenditures exploded to more than $419 million, up from $312 million the prior year.

The jump is even more stark when compared to its spending during the previous two presidential elections in 2012 and 2008, when their outlays topped out at $261 million and $204 million, respectively, according to similar audits.These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training.

 

[hadit]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Of course it means something. What it doesn't mean, however, is that people can own guns only if they belong to a regulated militia.

it doesn't say that; it says, you must be well regulated, to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

No, it does not say that. It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about "for your State or the Union". You added that in there yourself, and desperately hope that it will somehow magically appear if you say it often enough, but IT'S NOT IN THERE.

The security of a free State of our Union is expressly declared as the reason for a well regulated militia. We should have no security problems in our free States.

I know, you keep saying that. What is NOT in the amendment, however, is anything that says your right to bear arms is contingent on it being "for your state or the union". That's your quote, care to deal with it?

 

[Dale Smith]

Oh, and here we go with the goal-post moving. "They're the largest donor. No, wait, I only meant single issue donors

They are absolutely the largest donor by orders of magnitude on this issue...and they have bled into many others as they became more political

The NRA talks and the GOP jumps.

And they get tens of millions from Russia...

Oh, well, since you said it AGAIN, that must make it true. I thought you were full of shit until you repeated yourself.

Facts, tweeko. Tell me facts. Your opinions and assertions mean nothing to me, because if you told me the sky was blue, I'd go outside and check.

Save the name calling if you want to sound like anything approaching a reasonable person

From Open Secrets

The National Rifle Association’s overall spending surged by more than $100 million in 2016, surpassing any previous annual NRA spending totals on record, according to an audit obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The explosion in spending came as the NRA poured unprecedented amounts of money into efforts to deliver Donald Trump the White House and help Republicans hold both houses of Congress.

The audit filed with the state of North Carolina shows that the NRA’s total expenditures exploded to more than $419 million, up from $312 million the prior year.

The jump is even more stark when compared to its spending during the previous two presidential elections in 2012 and 2008, when their outlays topped out at $261 million and $204 million, respectively, according to similar audits.These spending totals include all of the NRA’s operations in 2016, from law enforcement programs and hunter services to education and training.

Perhaps folks like myself realized that all those false flag shootings, staged events would continue under deep state queen aka "The Hildebeast" and realized that by joining the NRA and sending donations to support Trump was in the best interest of the country? To claim that the ROOOSKIES were funding the NRA is quite a reach...and I am putting that kindly.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This clause must mean something: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Of course it means something. What it doesn't mean, however, is that people can own guns only if they belong to a regulated militia.

it doesn't say that; it says, you must be well regulated, to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.

No, it does not say that. It says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing about "for your State or the Union". You added that in there yourself, and desperately hope that it will somehow magically appear if you say it often enough, but IT'S NOT IN THERE.

The security of a free State of our Union is expressly declared as the reason for a well regulated militia. We should have no security problems in our free States.

I know, you keep saying that. What is NOT in the amendment, however, is anything that says your right to bear arms is contingent on it being "for your state or the union". That's your quote, care to deal with it?

Infringed, is the word used.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of our free States or the Union.