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.
The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.And we wouldn’t if left-wing lunatics such as yourself would stop infringing on our 2nd Amendment right.we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
means nothing; we could be emptying some jails.Not a problem, there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment;no, it isn't.The day of the Militia is past. It's been past for at least 100 years. The cost of the weapons and the cost of the training has long since outpaced what any one state can afford. And it's certainly exceeded anything a private company or individual can afford as well. Only nations can afford those expenditures.
we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
the right wing is just too lazy to muster and prove their "learning how to fish ethic"; they prefer affirmative action.
Okay, prove to me where you can muster an ARmy of civilians in a months time that is equipped to take on an Iranian Trained Terrorist Group that is comprised of 2000 troops with the weapons that they will possess? You have one month to train, equip and get your logistics in place. You need to tell me where you are going to get the supplies, weapons and the trainers from. And you have to do it without raising the worries of the Federal Government.
Just a short list of arms you will need
M-240 or M-60 MG (good luck on that one)
M-2 (Good luck on that one)
M-249 (good luck on that one)
M-230 (Good luck on that one)
Grenades (More good luck on that one)
Shall I keep going? The bad guy will have all that and more. Only in the movies will you be able to go up against a 12.7mm belt fed MG with a couple of AR-15s. And that RPG-7 will eat your Pickup Truck for lunch.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
You didn't read Part 16 which excludes those that are part of the State Militia that are NOT eligible for recall for Federal Duty. These people cannot be called up unless the State gives it's consent. The State still has the right to have it's State Militia under the 2nd amendment. But the reason to have it these days is to support emergencies. Texas seems to be very busy in that department. And California has many of their State Militia involved in their Forest Fires.
Na, not reallymeans nothing; we could be emptying some jails.Not a problem, there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment;no, it isn't.
we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
the right wing is just too lazy to muster and prove their "learning how to fish ethic"; they prefer affirmative action.
Okay, prove to me where you can muster an ARmy of civilians in a months time that is equipped to take on an Iranian Trained Terrorist Group that is comprised of 2000 troops with the weapons that they will possess? You have one month to train, equip and get your logistics in place. You need to tell me where you are going to get the supplies, weapons and the trainers from. And you have to do it without raising the worries of the Federal Government.
Just a short list of arms you will need
M-240 or M-60 MG (good luck on that one)
M-2 (Good luck on that one)
M-249 (good luck on that one)
M-230 (Good luck on that one)
Grenades (More good luck on that one)
Shall I keep going? The bad guy will have all that and more. Only in the movies will you be able to go up against a 12.7mm belt fed MG with a couple of AR-15s. And that RPG-7 will eat your Pickup Truck for lunch.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
You didn't read Part 16 which excludes those that are part of the State Militia that are NOT eligible for recall for Federal Duty. These people cannot be called up unless the State gives it's consent. The State still has the right to have it's State Militia under the 2nd amendment. But the reason to have it these days is to support emergencies. Texas seems to be very busy in that department. And California has many of their State Militia involved in their Forest Fires.
What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Well, we all have “authority” as U.S. citizens to advocate for laws, constitutional amendments, etc. The problem with the left is that they just ignore the law and act like oppressive little dictators. They refuse to accept the will of the people.Na, not really You have no authorityWhat it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
means nothing; we could be emptying some jails.Not a problem, there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment;no, it isn't.
we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
the right wing is just too lazy to muster and prove their "learning how to fish ethic"; they prefer affirmative action.
Okay, prove to me where you can muster an ARmy of civilians in a months time that is equipped to take on an Iranian Trained Terrorist Group that is comprised of 2000 troops with the weapons that they will possess? You have one month to train, equip and get your logistics in place. You need to tell me where you are going to get the supplies, weapons and the trainers from. And you have to do it without raising the worries of the Federal Government.
Just a short list of arms you will need
M-240 or M-60 MG (good luck on that one)
M-2 (Good luck on that one)
M-249 (good luck on that one)
M-230 (Good luck on that one)
Grenades (More good luck on that one)
Shall I keep going? The bad guy will have all that and more. Only in the movies will you be able to go up against a 12.7mm belt fed MG with a couple of AR-15s. And that RPG-7 will eat your Pickup Truck for lunch.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
You didn't read Part 16 which excludes those that are part of the State Militia that are NOT eligible for recall for Federal Duty. These people cannot be called up unless the State gives it's consent. The State still has the right to have it's State Militia under the 2nd amendment. But the reason to have it these days is to support emergencies. Texas seems to be very busy in that department. And California has many of their State Militia involved in their Forest Fires.
What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
means nothing; we could be emptying some jails.Not a problem, there are no natural rights in our Second Amendment;Okay, prove to me where you can muster an ARmy of civilians in a months time that is equipped to take on an Iranian Trained Terrorist Group that is comprised of 2000 troops with the weapons that they will possess? You have one month to train, equip and get your logistics in place. You need to tell me where you are going to get the supplies, weapons and the trainers from. And you have to do it without raising the worries of the Federal Government.
Just a short list of arms you will need
M-240 or M-60 MG (good luck on that one)
M-2 (Good luck on that one)
M-249 (good luck on that one)
M-230 (Good luck on that one)
Grenades (More good luck on that one)
Shall I keep going? The bad guy will have all that and more. Only in the movies will you be able to go up against a 12.7mm belt fed MG with a couple of AR-15s. And that RPG-7 will eat your Pickup Truck for lunch.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
You didn't read Part 16 which excludes those that are part of the State Militia that are NOT eligible for recall for Federal Duty. These people cannot be called up unless the State gives it's consent. The State still has the right to have it's State Militia under the 2nd amendment. But the reason to have it these days is to support emergencies. Texas seems to be very busy in that department. And California has many of their State Militia involved in their Forest Fires.
What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Nope.... it is fine just the way it is, the last thing we need are morons like you updating it out of existence...
You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
The federal government has no credibility in the matterAnd that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
The federal government has no credibility in the matterAnd that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.
Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.
We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.
Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....
You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
The Second Amendment BEGINS
"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."
That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.
Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".
We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members
Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....
No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.
Again, Scalia voiced a dissenting view. That's the losers view. He expounded much longer than the actual ruling. He ragged on and on. His views are not worth the paper it's printed on legally. You keep trying to make Heller V DC from something quite simple into something quite complicated. It's very simple. Heller was denied his right to own a serviceable handgun in his home. He was denied the right to obtain a proper license to possess the gun in his home. The existing law stated that the only way he could have a handgun in his home was to have it either disassembled or with a trigger guard rendering it inoperable and he was denied a licenses to have a serviceable handgun in his home. The Heller v DC ruling reversed that law. Simple as that. Heller still had to have a background check on his handgun, could not bring it out into the street unless rendered inoperable and still was required to have a license for himself to possess that handgun as per the DC laws. This is a bit more restrictive than we have here but it ain't DC here. Stop trying to make it into something difficult.
